Visitor Monitoring System for the WTWHA: Vol 3 BEST PRACTICE MANUAL
Visitor Monitoring System for the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area
Volume 3 Case Studies - Biophysical Assessment Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
R. F. Wilson, S. M. Turton, J. M. Bentrupperbäumer and J. P. Reser
Rainforest CRC Headquarters at James Cook University, Smithfield, Cairns Postal address: PO Box 6811, Cairns, QLD 4870, AUSTRALIA Phone: (07) 4042 1246 Fax: (07) 4042 1247 Email: [email protected] http://www.rainforest-crc.jcu.edu.au
The Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management (Rainforest CRC) is a research partnership involving the Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management Commonwealth and Queensland State Governments, the Wet Tropics Management Authority, the tourism industry, Aboriginal groups, the CSIRO, James Cook University, Griffith University and The University of Queensland.
VISITOR MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE WET TROPICS WORLD HERITAGE AREA
VOLUME 3 Case Studies – Biophysical Assessment
R. F. Wilson1, S. M. Turton1, J. M. Bentrupperbäumer1 and J. P. Reser2
1School of Tropical Environment Studies and Geography, James Cook University 2School of Psychology, James Cook University
Established and supported under the Australian Cooperative Research Centres Program © Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management.
ISBN 0 86443 741 2 (Set of Volumes 1, 2 and 3)
0 86443 744 7 (Volume 3)
This work is copyright. The Copyright Act 1968 permits fair dealing for study, research, news reporting, criticism or review. Selected passages, tables or diagrams may be reproduced for such purposes provided acknowledgment of the source is included. Major extracts of the entire document may not be reproduced by any process without written permission of the Chief Executive Officer, CRC for Tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management.
Published by the Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management. Further copies may be requested from the Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management, James Cook University, PO Box 6811 Cairns, QLD, Australia 4870.
This publication should be cited as: Wilson, R. F., Turton, S. M., Bentrupperbäumer, J. M. and Reser, J. P. (2004) Visitor Monitoring System for the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area: Volume 3 Case Studies – Biophysical Assessment. Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management. Rainforest CRC, Cairns. (150pp.)
Cover Images: J. M. Bentrupperbäumer
December 2004
For copies of this document, please visit: www.rainforest-crc.jcu.edu.au
Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
PREFACE
Almost three million visitors cannot be wrong! The Wet Tropics World Heritage Area of North Queensland is not only a precious ecological asset, it has also become one of Australia’s most outstanding attractions for local, interstate and international visitors. Queensland’s reputation and status as a tourism destination owes much to its natural environment, not least the wonders of our tropical forests and landscapes.
Tourism in the World Heritage Area alone is estimated to generate over A$750 million (Driml 1997) of economic benefit for local communities each year. The Wet Tropics region has experienced significant increases in domestic and international tourism over the past twenty years, with some two million visitors per year in 1995 and an estimated three million in 2003. Recent projections suggest that tourist numbers will reach four million per year by 2016, with an increase in international visitors being a major contributing factor.
The recent Wet Tropics Visitor Survey (Bentrupperbäumer and Reser, 2002) has estimated about 4.4 million visits per year to recognised Wet Tropics World Heritage Area sites, with sixty percent of these visits by domestic and international tourists. The remaining forty percent were local residents engaging in rainforest-based recreational activities. In addition, it is estimated that some 270,000 people will live in the Wet Tropics region by 2016, placing increasing pressure on the World Heritage Area.
The Wet Tropics Nature Based Tourism Strategy (Wet Tropics Management Authority 2000) and Wet Tropics Walking Strategy (Wet Tropics Management Authority 2000) both address tourism and recreation issues in the World Heritage Area, and both have identified the need to develop a Visitor Monitoring System for ongoing evaluation of the environmental condition of some 180 recognised visitor nodes and sites in the area. Successful strategies to address these needs requires sound scientific advice on environmental impacts of visitation and use on the World Heritage Area. Only on this basis can effective management tools and practices be implemented to achieve sustainable outcomes.
The initial proposal for the Visitor Monitoring System was discussed with the Rainforest CRC’s Program 4 Support Group in 2001, the role of which is to ensure that researchers and research users collaborate at every stage of the project. With strong endorsement from the Support Group, the Visitor Monitoring System has been designed to provide advice to managers of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area on the basis of a hierarchical monitoring system that engages tour operators, park rangers and researchers. Once operational, the Visitor Monitoring System will allow environmental agencies to base land-management decisions on sound scientific advice – a crucial requirement that has been identified by industry, conservation groups and management agencies.
While specifically designed for the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area, this ‘gold-standard’ three-volume best practice manual is sufficiently generic to be of considerable value to protected area managers in other parts of Australia and overseas.
Tourism, research and conservation have a strong mutual interest. The Rainforest CRC has a long-term commitment to tourism research in tropical Australia, and the tourism industry has long been a major user of its research and a driver of the CRC’s research agenda for the last ten years.
i Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
I congratulate the Rainforest CRC, the authors and the production team for the practical and highly valuable contribution they have made to sustainable tourism and conservation. I recommend the Visitor Monitoring System tools to all stakeholders in industry and in government agencies, and look forward to a continued tourism industry partnership with all stakeholders of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area.
Daniel Gschwind Chief Executive Officer Queensland Tourism Industry Council
ii Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
TERMS OF REFERENCE
DEVELOPMENT OF A VISITOR MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE WET TROPICS WORLD HERITAGE AREA
The following Terms of Reference are quoted directly from the Wet Tropics Management Authority Contract (No. 658).
Purpose of the Contract
The Wet Tropics Nature Based Tourism Strategy (NBTS) and Wet Tropics Walking Track Strategy (WS) identify the need for a visitor monitoring system (VMS) associated with nature based tourism and recreation activities in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area (WTWHA) and surrounding areas.
The proposed VMS aims to build on past and current research and monitoring of visitor management, coordinating the work of various researchers and land managers to provide a comprehensive and practical system for monitoring all aspects of visitor management. The project provides a necessary link between the research goals of Rainforest CRC Programs 3 and 4, which are essentially concerned with rainforest visitation and usage at regional and local level, respectively.
Aims of the Project
The aim of this project, essentially, is to design a robust, efficient, practical and cost-effective VMS for the WTWHA and environs, which assists management in identifying whether visitor management objectives are being met so that appropriate management responses can be made.
Key Attributes Required of the VMS Design
The VMS must be efficient, practical and cost-effective to implement.
The design should be recognised by both tourism interests and protected area managers as a robust, useful and worthwhile system for tourism and visitor management information and as a support for decision-making.
The site-monitoring component, which requires ongoing monitoring by field staff and/or tour operators, should be able to be readily incorporated into regular visitor management and tour operations. The benefits of conducting such monitoring must be readily demonstrable to field staff.
The VMS can be applied across the range of visitor site scenarios occurring in the study area (N.B. site monitoring elements are to be demonstrated at four pilot sites as part of this project).
The VMS design will also incorporate:
• Monitoring at other key regional locations (e.g. information centres, airports); • Survey components and associated questionnaires to complement ongoing monitoring systems. (N.B. As part of a separate but complementary project, the Rainforest CRC will be designing and undertaking site visitor surveys to plug into this VMS. However, this VMS project will need to design more intensive and targeted survey components for the
iii Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
four pilot sites, and ensure such surveys are completed as part of the 2001/2002 survey project); • Elements associated with monitoring pre-destination marketing, promotions and trip planning information; • Elements associated with monitoring suitability and appropriateness of information accessible to visitors on arrival to the Wet Tropics region, to assist in ‘matching’ visitor interests and expectations with available nature based tourism products; and • A trends-based approach, which will assist management in identifying whether visitor management objectives are being met so that appropriate management responses can be made.
iv Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
CONTENTS
Preface...... i Terms of Reference...... iii List of Tables...... viii List of Figures...... ix Acknowledgements ...... x Executive Summary ...... xi
Section 1: Strategic Linkages ...... Volume 1 of this Series
Section 2: Procedures and Proformas for Monitoring Biophysical Impacts of Visitation ...... Volume 1 of this Series
Section 3: Visitor Monitoring Process – From Pre-Destination to Post-Destination ... Volume 2 of this Series
Section 4: Case Studies – Biophysical Assessment...... 1
General Introduction to Biophysical Surveys...... 1 Biophysical Indicators...... 2 Study Sites ...... 4 Location of Biophysical Data Collection Within a Site ...... 5 Indicators and Measurements used in the Semi-Intensive Biophysical Assessment...... 5 Photographic Monitoring ...... 7 Overview of Data Collected at Sites...... 7 Process in Developing the Hierarchical Monitoring System...... 8 Tour Operator Proformas ...... 9 Results of Tour Operator Proforma Trials ...... 10 Land Manager Proformas...... 11 Results of Land Manager Proforma Trials...... 12
Key Findings and Recommendations...... 14
Tour Operator Level ...... 14 Land Manager Level...... 14
Management Implications...... 15
Implementation of this VMS ...... 15 Database...... 15 Further Research ...... 15
v Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
Marrdja Boardwalk ...... 17
Location and Site Description...... 17 Site Management and Activities ...... 17 Tour Operator Proforma Trial ...... 19 Land Manager Proforma Trial ...... 19 Semi-Intensive Biophysical Results ...... 20 Summary...... 22
Davies Creek...... 23
Location and Site Description...... 23 Site Management and Activities ...... 23 Davies Creek Falls Circuit ...... 24 Results of Tour Operator Proforma Trial ...... 25 Results of Land Manager Proforma Trial ...... 25 Key Findings from Ranger Proformas ...... 25 Semi-Intensive Biophysical Results ...... 28 Summary...... 32
Henrietta Creek and Nandroya Falls Track...... 33
Location and Site Description...... 33 Site Management and Activities ...... 33 Tour Operator Proforma Trials ...... 34 Results of Land Manager Proforma Trials...... 34 Key Findings from Ranger Proforma...... 36 Semi-Intensive Biophysical Results ...... 36 Summary...... 39
Murray Falls ...... 41
Location and Site Description...... 41 Indigenous Community...... 42 Site Management and Activities ...... 42 Tour Operator Proforma Trial ...... 43 Results from Land Manager Proforma Trial ...... 43 Semi-Intensive Biophysical Results ...... 46 Summary...... 51
Links Between Visitor Perceptions and Measured Biophysical Impacts ...... 53
Introduction...... 53
vi Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
Method ...... 53 Results ...... 53 Key Findings...... 55 Discussion...... 55 References...... 57 Appendix A – Tour Operator Proformas...... 59 Appendix B – Land Manager Proformas ...... 69 Appendix C – Biophysical Measurements...... 83 Appendix D – Summary Tables of Statistics ...... 95 Appendix E – Section of Survey Instrument to Investigate Visitors’ Perceptions of Environmental Impacts...... 127
vii Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Biophysical indicators used in the semi-intensive analyses ...... 6 Table 2: Time to conduct belt transect surveys where measurements consisting of fifteen presence/absence indicators and three measurements using a ruler to estimate heights ...... 7 Table 3: Timetable of data collection...... 8 Table 4: Number of respondents who assessed the scaling for each indicator and provided weightings for the indicators ...... 12 Table 5: Number of items of different types of human litter identified at three sites along five thirty metre long by one metre wide belt transects from the edge of the camp and picnic site into the forest ...... 13 Table 6: Summary of indicator responses between seasons and between sampling location, i.e. tread zone, buffer and control ...... 21 Table 7: Summary of indicator responses between seasons (wet and dry) and zone (tread, buffer and control; n = 20) measured at four camp/picnic nodes in the dry season and five nodes in the wet season at Davies Creek ...... 28 Table 8: Summary of indicator response between seasons (wet and dry) and zone (tread, buffer and control; n = 20) measured at 22 metre intervals along the graded track...... 29 Table 9: Ease of walking on Davies Creek track in the dry season determined from twenty quadrats taken along the track...... 31 Table 10: Frequency of occurrence (range of heights) of different types of vegetation in quadrats measured along the walking track ...... 31 Table 11: Number of quadrats with litter or leaf tip death along the walking track at Davies Creek...... 31 Table 12: Summary of indicator responses between seasons (wet and dry) and zone (tread, buffer and control; n = 20) measured at five camp/picnic nodes in the dry and wet seasons at Henrietta Creek...... 37 Table 13: Summary of response of indicators between seasons (wet and dry) and zone (tread, buffer and control; n = 20) measured at 110 metre intervals along the graded track (see Appendix D for tables of statistical analyses ...... 38 Table 14: Significant differences across tread, buffer and control at Nandroya Falls track ...... 39 Table 15: Summary of indicator responses between seasons (wet and dry) and zone (tread, buffer and control). Three replicates were taken at each of the eight camp/picnic nodes (n = 72 one-square-metre quadrats)...... 47 Table 16: Summary of indicator responses between seasons (wet and dry) and zone (tread, buffer and control; n = 20) measured at 47 metre intervals along the graded track at Murray Falls...... 49 Table 17: Modal scores of visitor perceptions and biophysical measurements at a) Marrdja Boardwalk; b) Davies Creek; c) Henrietta Creek; and d) Murray Falls in the wet season (April 2002)...... 53 Table 18: Comparison of visitor perceptions and biophysical measurements across sites ...... 55
viii Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Location of Wet Tropics study sites...... 3 Figure 2: Sampling locations within a camp and picnic area and along walking tracks ...... 5 Figure 3: Three levels of data collection and their intended users ...... 8 Figure 4: Schematic stylised diagram of Marrdja Boardwalk showing distribution of mangroves, rainforest and signage. Insert shows car and bus parking available at the site...... 18 Figure 5: Location of undesignated walking tracks at Davies Creek ...... 24 Figure 6: Location of map and nodes at Henrietta Creek...... 35 Figure 7: Site at Murray Falls showing location of sampling nodes for semi-intensive biophysical assessment ...... 41 Figure 8: Photographic location and aspects for monitoring of the camp and picnic area at Murray Falls ...... 44 Figure 9: Location of camp and picnic area, day-use area and graded rainforest walk at Murray Falls ...... 46 Figure 10: Mean percentage of cover of bare ground, vegetation and leaf litter within the eight camp/picnic areas, buffer (edge of the camp/picnic area) and control (ten metres from edge)...... 47 Figure 11: Location of undesignated tracks at Murray Falls...... 48 Figure 12: Mean percentage of cover of seven quantitative factors recorded in the tread, buffer (edge of track) and control (ten metres into the forest) zones along the graded track at Murray Falls (n = 20, one-square-metre quadrats per set) ...... 50
ix Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The input of several people from different stakeholder groups (the tourism industry, Wet Tropics Management Authority, Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, and Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service) at different stages of this study is gratefully acknowledged.
Thanks to:
Tourism industry: John Courtenay; Gordon Dixon; members of the Tourism Alliance and Tourism Executive Committee; tour guides who conducted trials of the proforma (names withheld for privacy).
Wet Tropics Management Authority: Max Chappell and Campbell Clarke.
Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy/Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service: Ritchie Carrigan; William Dorries; Lee Hess; Jeremy Little; Mike Murphy; Robin Smith; Andrew Spooner; and Tim Woods.
Field assistants: Staff and students of James Cook University (Cairns Campus), Joan Bentrupperbäumer; Shannon Bros; Robin Chazdon; Heidi Freiburger; Shane Garrozo; Micheal Milione; Charmaine Paul; Hilde Slaatten; Lucas Talbot; and Cleo Wilson.
Data entry and technical assistance: Ian Curtis.
x Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
1. To identify and collate existing expertise and data to develop a framework for a visitor monitoring system (VMS) for the Wet Tropics region that is recognised by tourism and protected area management. 2. To design a robust, efficient, practical and cost-effective system that incorporates both site and regional level components and to trial the system in the field.
INTRODUCTION
Australia’s Wet Tropics World Heritage Area (WTWHA) is of international significance. It is the duty of the Australian community to ensure its special values are protected, conserved, presented and rehabilitated for future generations (WTMA 2000). In order to meet these obligations it has been recognised that the WTWHA requires a visitor monitoring system that incorporates regional and site level monitoring and involves all levels of users, commercial and free and independent travellers, and managers (WTMA 2000, 2001).
The Wet Tropics is an internationally acclaimed visitor destination (WTMA 2000). In 1998, there were over two hundred commercial tour operators with permits to operate within the Wet Tropics (QPWS 1998), most of whom were operating in far north Queensland within the WTWHA (TQ 1998). Visitors to the WTWHA sites also include domestic travellers and the local community. A survey, conducted in 1998 by Tourism Queensland, found domestic travellers account for more than eighty percent of visitors to Queensland (TQ 1998). Direct use of the WTWHA by tourists is estimated to generate over $179 million annually, which is a significant economic contribution to the local and regional economy (Driml 1997).
There are over 180 sites being used by visitors to the WTWHA, of which 94 have associated infrastructure (WTESSC 1996). This is a significant number of sites. Visitation is increasing to WTWHA sites and this requires careful management if it is to be sustainable. Human presence in any natural environment results in some level of disturbance (Hammitt and Cole 1998) and these impacts require monitoring.
Tour operators have reported that in the past their observations and comments to management regarding negative impacts associated with visitation were not always addressed. This highlights the need for a formalised monitoring system that ensures their concerns are recorded and, if necessary, acted upon. Therefore the first level of monitoring in the visitor monitoring system produced for the Wet Tropics Management Authority involves the tourism industry.
Sites with low levels of visitation are primarily visited by the local community and the more adventurous independent travellers. The types of impacts occurring at these sites are different than those at high use areas. Tour groups do not usually visit low use sites and thus land managers form the first level of monitoring at these sites.
Visitation and use of sites changes over time, so site managers require a monitoring system that will track these changes and respond as necessary.
There are three basic levels to the visitor monitoring system presented in this report: 1) tour operator rapid assessment; 2) land manager semi-rapid assessment; and 3) researcher semi-intensive assessment.
xi Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
STRUCTURE OF THE VISITOR MONITORING SYSTEM BEST PRACTICE MANUAL
The Best Practice Manual consists of four sections, separated into three Volumes:
• Volume 1: Procedural Manual; • Volume 2: Visitor Monitoring Process – From Pre-Destination to Post-Destination; and • Volume 3: Case Studies – Biophysical Assessment.
Section 1 (Volume 1) details how the components of the VMS link to provide useful information for visitor management. It also shows how this VMS links with other VMS at a national, state and regional level and how it is complemented by other research and survey activities within the Rainforest CRC.
Section 2 (Volume 1) presents the protocols, proformas and methods used to monitor visitation and use, and directions for how the VMS might be enhanced with additional data from other sources in the future.
Section 3 (Volume 2) details how the VMS may be linked with pre- and post-destination planning and other components of the travel sequence.
Section 4 (Volume 3) comprises four case studies used to develop and trial the visitor monitoring system.
OVERVIEW OF SECTION 1: STRATEGIC LINKAGES (VOLUME 1)
In this section, we report on visitor monitoring conducted at a national, state and regional level. We discuss the work undertaken in Project 4.1 of the Rainforest CRC, which involved site and regional monitoring, and its links to Project 4.5 and pre-destination planning. Within Project 4.1 two types of surveys were conducted. The first was conducted during the wet and dry season at ten sites distributed throughout the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area (WTWHA); the second was a community attitudes survey. The site level work of Project 4.1 was developed further at four sites to provide a linkage to Project 4.5 (which addresses the biophysical impacts of visitation) by including an additional section in the visitor survey that addressed visitors' perceptions of biophysical impacts. Regional level monitoring conducted at gateways (Project 3.1, Rainforest CRC) to provide a link between site and regional level monitoring, was not completed. A genuine attempt to link site level monitoring and regional monitoring was undertaken by Project 4.1 by aggregating data collected at the ten survey sites.
Key Findings
There are few examples of visitor monitoring systems in Australia. Most visitor monitoring systems are being developed for protected areas by national park agencies. They range in complexity from general regional surveys of visitation and traffic counts to more detailed systems that include visitor surveys of peoples’ experiences, expectations and satisfaction, and actual biophysical monitoring. However, they do not attempt to link components of visitor monitoring at a regional and site level.
To a large extent, existing systems and methods are serving very different objectives and addressing very different target populations and client/consumer audiences, as well as operating at different levels of analysis and spatial scales.
xii Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
Our VMS has a more balanced approach, compared with others we have reviewed, as it includes not only biophysical impacts of visitation and use but also the impact of settings and experiences on visitors. Moreover, our system attempts to correct any adverse trends impacting on visitors and the environment.
Recommendations
Regional components of the VMS should include visitor pre-destination planning, arrival and departure information and community attitudes. A strategic framework is presented, examining how the VMS relates to other components of the travel sequence. We recommend the adoption of the visitor monitoring techniques developed for the various travel stages, although we acknowledge that further research will be required to operationalise these methods.
Site level components should include traffic counts, which are verified by on-site observations of vehicle occupancy, visitor surveys, observations of visitor behaviour on-site, and biophysical impact monitoring. These components should be supplemented by qualitative information from tour operators, land managers and the Aboriginal community that together provide the data to trigger responses by management.
Management Implications
With respect to a fully operational and satisfactory VMS, it is likely that two or more independent ‘systems’ will be adopted and implemented. The first will focus on site level and resident community management, and reporting needs relating to changes and impacts resulting from all human visitation and use. A second tourism planning and industry sponsored system will have a clearer focus on the monitoring of visitation patterns and profiles, destinations and decisions for those tourists visiting the WTWHA bioregion, and more generally, far north Queensland.
The more ‘regional’ tourism planning and industry sponsored system will in any case need to articulate with other state-wide and national tourism monitoring enterprises. It will serve rather different needs and requirements, though their findings are nonetheless of particular interest and relevance to protected area management, especially with respect to the assessment and quantification of changing ‘pressures’ and preferences, and both visitor satisfaction and tourism-related economic benefit.
Further Research
The relationship between the VMS and the full travel sequence has only been considered in general terms in this report. Recommendations are given on how different stages of travel might be monitored. A more detailed analysis of these recommendations is an area for further study.
OVERVIEW OF SECTION 2: PROCEDURES AND PROFORMAS FOR MONITORING BIOPHYSICAL IMPACTS OF VISITATION (VOLUME 1)
Section 2 of the report details the procedures and proformas for conducting a biophysical monitoring program at a site level in the WTWHA. Biophysical impacts in this context refer to impacts on the natural environment and visitor infrastructure. The methods and indicators chosen for this VMS allow basic visitor monitoring and use simple, robust, and cost-effective measures. This VMS was designed to identify positive, neutral and negative trends in the environment, infrastructure and services at a site. If negative trends were identified, then the
xiii Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser action to be implemented will depend on the nature, severity and source of impact, management intent and current management practices in place.
Procedures and proformas were designed for a tropical rainforest setting but may be applied to other natural settings. Types of monitoring are presented in order of increasing complexity, that is, from rapid assessment to detailed field-based measurements. We consider how the site monitoring components should be set up, and how the survey components should be applied.
Visitors to sites, whether on tours or as independent travellers, impact on the natural environment and have the potential to affect the quality of a site. The condition of the site also impacts on the visitor. Monitoring allows early detection of potential problems and thus assists in the preservation of a site and allows management to identify whether or not their objectives are being met.
Indicators included in the proformas were identified and collated from research and consultation with members of the tourist industry and protected area managers. Indicators used by researchers were adapted from methods used overseas and within Australia.
Key Findings
Tour operators represent the first level of visitor monitoring and are very important in the VMS for alerting land managers to problems, triggering immediate action and, if necessary, further intensive monitoring. We recognise that tour operators make more frequent visits than land managers to most sites and are in the position to give an early warning of any adverse impacts.
It is recognised that there are site-specific issues, which will be addressed for each site. Of the four VMS sites, only Marrdja Boardwalk is being used on a regular basis by tour groups. Particular issues at this site include the use of bus parking spaces by free and independent travellers and unauthorised tour groups, and visitors walking the wrong way around the boardwalk.
Protected area managers (rangers) represent the second level of visitor monitoring. The techniques employed are more intensive and comprehensive than those used by tour operators and so can be conducted less often. Specifically, we have developed and tested proformas for campsites and picnic sites, walking tracks and water features.
Recommendations
It is recommended that all tour guides conduct their VMS survey component once a week and incorporate it into their tour. This will allow a temporal overview of the site in a day. Benefits for tour guides include:
• involvement in management practices; • opportunities to involve visitors in monitoring; and • increased awareness of the environment by operators and their guests.
Monitoring techniques developed for rangers should be undertaken four times a year. Those developed for researchers should be conducted at least bi-annually.
xiv Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
Management Implications
The tour operator proforma was designed to:
• assist in monitoring site changes over time; • increase awareness of changes in the environment; • assist rangers in identifying problems; • provide information to trigger land management actions; and • provide an early warning to trigger intensive survey work.
Ranger-level proformas inform management on a range of human and environmental risks, including:
• inappropriate visitor behaviour; • the need for greater ranger presence; • the status of maintenance of infrastructure; • the need for signs or fenced-off areas; • information about visitor movements; • tracking of maintenance needs; • waste disposal problems; • potential for human risk; • disturbance to flora and fauna due to visitation; • soil erosion; and • decline in health of vegetation.
Further Research
Site-level survey instruments will be applied and tested at further visitor sites in the Wet Tropics to evaluate their utility across a range of settings.
OVERVIEW OF SECTION 3: VISITOR MONITORING PROCESS – FROM PRE-DESTINATION TO POST-DESTINATION (VOLUME 2)
Section 3 is presented in three sections:
• The visitation process; • Methodologies used to monitor the visitation process; and • An example illustrating the process.
The four stages of the visitation process under consideration include: planning the visit, access to the site; the onsite visit; and finally, the post site visit. The methodologies used to research the different stages of the visitation process are outlined and are those which have been used in the research reviewed (e.g. content analysis, surveys, impact assessments, infrastructure inventories etc.). The example provided illustrates how monitoring a particular issue, i.e., information flow, can be examined across each of the stages of the visitation process (e.g. brochures, signage etc.).
xv Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
Marrdja Boardwalk, a key WTWHA site, is examined as a case study. The case study systematically addresses and presents research results for each component of the visitation process and current management policies. These together provide for an articulation of the management objectives and possible responses/actions.
Finally, a summary overview of the Marrdja case study is presented. This section identifies those aspects of the visitation process and VMS that need further research.
OVERVIEW OF SECTION 4: CASE STUDIES – BIOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENT (THIS VOLUME)
Case studies, including data for Marrdja Boardwalk, Davies Creek, Henrietta Creek/Nandroyan Falls and Murray Falls are contained in Volume 3.
Key Findings
A hierarchical system of monitoring visitation and use of Wet Tropics sites is feasible and operational but depends on the commitment of tour operators, land managers and researchers to make it successful.
A rapid assessment proforma developed for tour operator site monitoring allows for early detection of potential problems.
Intensive biophysical monitoring undertaken by researchers indicated high variability within sites, which negated the opportunity to compare amongst sites.
Common issues across sites included weed infestations along roads, walking tracks, camp and picnic areas, and evidence of feral pigs.
Intensive biophysical monitoring indicated people were keeping to walking tracks and not venturing into the forest, except where social (undesignated tracks) had developed. When this occurred, activity was confined to undesignated tracks and not widespread within the forest.
Human litter was an issue in habitats bordering camp and picnic areas.
A comparison of human perceptions of biophysical impacts and measured biophysical impacts using Land Manager Proformas indicated:
• water quality was the only indicator where reasonable agreement between peoples’ perceptions and biophysical assessments occurred; • biophysical measures suggested infrastructure damage was higher than that perceived by visitors; • weeds and evidence of feral animals were more likely to be higher than visitor perceptions suggested; • no clear correlation between perceptions and biophysical assessment were evident for soil erosion, vegetation damage or scavenging; and • visitor responses were not providing appropriate information for managers.
Recommendations
• Develop a database that allows tour operators and land managers to enter data and receive an update on the condition of their sites. xvi Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
• Hold workshops for tour operators and land managers on use of the proformas. • Trial the Land Manager Proformas with rangers. • Implement the Visitor Monitoring System. • Take water samples for laboratory testing from sites used by visitors during intermediate assessments by land managers.
Management Implications
Social (undesignated) tracks pose potential human risk, as they may occur on steep sections of tracks or near waterholes and waterfalls. They may also cause environmental impacts such as erosion, and act as vectors for the spread of pathogens. Social tracks may also intrude on sensitive Aboriginal sites.
Weeds were dense along the edge of camp and picnic areas and water bodies, and need to be controlled to prevent further distribution.
Human litter within forest bordering camp and picnic areas needs attention, as poses a risk to wildlife and humans.
Future Research
Develop a weighting system, as attempted in this project with the modified Land Manager Proformas, that allows a condition score for natural and built environments to determine any human risk.
Identify potential indicators of visitation and wildlife interactions.
xvii
SECTION 4: CASE STUDIES – BIOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENT
Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
SECTION 4: CASE STUDIES – BIOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENT
GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO BIOPHYSICAL SURVEYS
This section outlines the process undertaken in developing the biophysical component of the Wet Tropics Visitor Monitoring System (VMS). It presents findings of both belt transects conducted across sites to identify litter and trampling impacts, and results of a trial with the tourism industry of a proforma developed for them to use in monitoring visitation and use of Wet Tropics sites. It also includes key findings and recommendations, management implications and future research.
A hierarchal system of data collection was developed (see Volume 1), which involved three levels:
• A rapid assessment to be undertaken by tour operators; • An intermediate assessment to be undertaken by land managers; and • An intensive assessment to be undertaken by researchers.
Similar indicators were used at each level of assessment. The system operates so that negative findings at the tour operator level trigger higher level monitoring at the land manager and researcher level, and a corresponding management response. The aim is to control environmental degradation associated with visitation at a particular site through early detection and management.
Results of a trial of these proformas are presented in four case studies. The trial was conducted at four sites within the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area: Marrdja Boardwalk, Davies Creek, Henrietta Creek/Nandroya Falls, and Murray Falls (Figure 1).
Distributed across the Wet Tropics, the four sites differ in elevation, geology, hydrology, rainfall, forest type, cultural significance and level and type of visitation. For these reasons, and because of the variability found among indicators within a site, the four sites are presented as case studies.
Each case study includes a general introduction to site and management issues. Findings from the trial of the Tour Operator Proforma, Land Manager Proforma and the Researcher Proforma are then presented with key findings and recommendations.
The final component of this section links findings from the biophysical questions addressed in a visitor survey conducted at the same time (Bentrupperbäumer and Reser 2002) with the biophysical measurements presented for each case study.
1 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
BIOPHYSICAL INDICATORS
Biophysical impacts result from natural stochastic events and direct and indirect anthropogenic activities. Direct anthropogenic effects resulting from visitation and recreation use of a site are numerous and include trampling of vegetation; soil erosion from vehicle traffic, mountain bikes and hikers; denuded vegetation in camp sites; scorched soil from irresponsible placement of fires; soil compaction; broken branches; ringbarked trees; littering; weeds imported via tyres and foot wear; gullying from off-road vehicle use; and removal of vegetation such as epiphytes, seedlings and seeds (Cole 1986, 1992; Buchanan 1987; Jim 1987). The sources of indirect impacts are harder to identify but may negatively impact on the natural environment, e.g. dieback.
In the tropics, stochastic events that impact on the forest are primarily associated with cyclones. These can be intense but most destruction is confined to the path taken by a cyclone. In contrast to anthropogenic effects, destructive climatic events such as drought occur less frequently.
In developing this set of indicators we have looked at impacts that result from visitor activity at a site, and those associated with management that are known to impact on visitors. Both are important in monitoring visitor behaviour if affected by the condition of a site (Bentrupperbäumer and Reser 2000).
2 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
Figure 1: Location of Wet Tropics study sites (Map: G Wilson 2002).
3 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
STUDY SITES
Four study sites within the Wet Tropics – Marrdja Boardwalk (Daintree), Davies Creek (Atherton Tablelands), Henrietta Fall/Nandroya (Wooroonooran National Park), and Murray Falls (Murray Falls State Forest Park) – were used in this pilot study (Figure 1). Davies Creek is outside the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area, but is an adjacent National Park. These sites differ in their vegetation communities, elevation and level of visitation and are thus treated as case studies, not as replicates. Detailed site descriptions are presented in each case study.
The sites were selected in consultation with tour operators, land managers and the Aboriginal Community for the following reasons:
Site Reason for Selection Interested Party Marrdja Boardwalk High use interpretive boardwalk. Tourism Queensland Davies Creek Local recreational site. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service Henrietta Falls/Nandroya Site in close proximity to major tourism Wet Tropics development. Management Authority Murray Falls Site with Aboriginal community Aboriginal Community development opportunities.
Vegetation at Marrdja Boardwalk and Murray Falls is lowland rainforest; Henrietta Falls/Nandroya is mid-elevation rainforest at around 550 metres above sea level. Davies Creek consists of dry/wet sclerophyll forest, also mid-elevation at around 594 metres. Level of visitor use, based on estimated amount of use per annum, was low at Davies Creek, Henrietta Creek and Murray Falls, and high at Marrdja Boardwalk. Low use sites receive less than forty thousand visitors per annum, while high use sites receive more than forty thousand visitors (Wet Tropics Management Authority 1994). A recent study of Murray Falls categorises this site as high use (Turton et al. 2000) but this was based on early data (Wet Tropics Management Authority 1994) where traffic counters were not considered to be reliable. Traffic counter data and estimates of visitor numbers collected during Rainforest CRC visitor surveys indicate that Murray Falls is a low use site with no visits by commercial tour operators.
Biophysical data were collected at the four sites in the dry (September to November 2001) and wet season (April to May 2002) to allow for seasonal variation in impacts. Seasonal differences are likely to influence environmental factors such as erosion, litter depth, and compaction. This was considered important, given the strong seasonal differences in rainfall across the Wet Tropics between seasons (Turton et al. 1999). However, the rainfall for the 2001-2002 wet season for the region was well below average and thus the results are unlikely to represent normal wet season conditions. Greater variation in biophysical impacts would be expected between the dry and wet season in normal years. In this study any differences in the dry and wet season data are not likely to be the result of seasonal effects. A further factor that influenced visitation to the region during this study was the collapse of Ansett and the ripple-on effects of the September 11, 2001 disaster in the United States on world travel.
4 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
LOCATION OF BIOPHYSICAL DATA COLLECTION WITHIN A SITE
Within each of the sites different use areas were identified – camp and picnic area, walking track and freshwater feature. The camp and picnic area was further divided into nodes. Five camp and picnic nodes were identified for Davies Creek and Henrietta Creek. Eight camp and picnic nodes were surveyed at Murray Falls, using the same locations used in Bentrupperbäumer and Reser (2002). It should be noted that Marrdja Boardwalk does not have camp or picnic facilities. For both the walking track and the camp and picnic area, samples were taken in the impact area, buffer and control, i.e. ten metres from the edge of the track or camp and picnic area (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Sampling locations within a camp and picnic area and along walking tracks.
INDICATORS AND MEASUREMENTS USED IN THE SEMI-INTENSIVE BIOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENT
The methodology used in this study is referred to as semi-intensive because it does not use sophisticated equipment, however data collection takes time. It was based on recreational impact techniques that have been used in the Wet Tropics (Kluck 1998; Turton, Kluck and Day 2000) and in the United States (Hammit and Cole 1987) with some modifications to scaling, choices of indicators (Table 1), and collection techniques. For example, scaling was modified from a three point to a five point scale to increase sensitivity in identifying impacts. Additional indicators included canopy cover, presence of epiphytes, ferns, fungi and woody debris in quadrats.
Indicators were grouped to capture above ground and below ground processes and were chosen on the basis of being simple to measure, meaningful, reliable, sensitive to change and low cost. The use of belt transects for detecting litter and trampling was also included and time taken to conduct these surveys is shown in Table 2.
Measurements made using the belt transect were presence or absence of native plants, exotic plants, grass, broadleaf, woody plants, trees (first branch more than two metres above ground), vine, fern, leaf litter, mineral soil exposure, root exposure, rock, human litter, trampling, canopy, slope and height of tallest grass, broadleaf, and woody plant.
5 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
Table 1: Biophysical indicators used in the semi-intensive analyses.
BIOPHYSICAL MEASUREMENT METHOD OF ANALYSIS INDICATOR INSTRUMENT
a. ABOVE GROUND
Cylinder with cross-hair to Canopy cover Percentage cover split area into quarters Seedling density Count of number of seedlings (<0.5m) Ruler, 1 m2 quadrat Grass Height of tallest grass Ruler, 1 m2 quadrat Broadleaf Height of tallest broadleaf Ruler, 1 m2 quadrat Sapling Height of tallest sapling Ruler, 1 m2 quadrat Scan of trees in camp/picnic area below Epiphytes 4 m; density on scale of 1-5
Scan of trees in camp/picnic are or Ferns along walking track in 15 m section; density on scale of 1-5
b. SOIL LEVEL OR BELOW GROUND
Percentage cover of exposed mineral Mineral soil exposure 1 m2 quadrat soil (bare ground) Fungi Percentage cover 1 m2 quadrat Woody debris Percentage cover 1 m2 quadrat Exposed roots Percentage cover 1 m2 quadrat Rock Percentage cover 1 m2 quadrat Litter cover Percentage cover 1 m2 quadrat An average of four measurements with Litter depth Ruler, 1 m2 quadrat the quadrat, recorded in cm Measured in kilogram force per Soil compaction centimetre square. An average of four 1 m2 quadrat measurements per quadrat.
c. OTHERS ASSOCIATED WITH VISITATION
1 x 1 m belt transect Trampling Presence or absence of trampling (30 m long) Number of items of different types, e.g. 1 x 1 m belt transect Human Litter sharps (30 m long) Track safety Scalar: 1-5 Track Slope Degrees of slope
6 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
Table 2: Time to conduct belt transect surveys where measurements consisting of fifteen presence/absence indicators and three measurements using a ruler to estimate heights.
Total Time (mins) in each replicate Mean Site Season Sampling Duration 1 2 3 4 5 (mins) Davies Wet 30 30 30 29 30 30 Belt transect Henrietta Wet from 40 46 31 26 45 37.6 campground Murray Falls Wet 30 20 25 32 30 27.5
Belt transects fifteen metres long, sampling unit 0.5 metre length and 0.5 metres either side of transect line. Each level of monitoring required basic site level information of location, weather condition, date (season), and recorder.
PHOTOGRAPHIC MONITORING
Fixed points for photographic monitoring, to be taken during an intermediate assessment of the sites, were identified. These points were fixtures that are unlikely to move in the long term, e.g. registration booths, fork in road or commencement of track. Ideally GPS readings at these points should be taken if possible (see Section 2, Volume 1).
Considerations when setting up a photographic record at each site included:
1. Choosing locations within a site from which photographs can be taken on a repetitive basis, e.g. landscape features such as a large boulder, hill or permanent infrastructures such as ablution blocks, camping registration booths, shelters, designated car park or fork in a road; 2. Ensuring capture of areas sensitive to visitation and use; and 3. Taking four photographs at each location standardised in clockwise direction - north, east, south and west to assist in identifying and sorting images.
1. NORTH
CAMPING 4. WEST REGISTRATION 2. EAST BOOTH
3. SOUTH
OVERVIEW OF DATA COLLECTED AT SITES
Data for items 1 to 4 in Table 3 are presented in Bentrupperbäumer and Reser (2002). The last page of the visitor survey administered at the pilot study sites was designed to investigate visitors perceptions of biophysical impacts and an analysis of these are included at the end of this report. Data for items 5 to 9 in Table 3 are presented in the following case studies.
7 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
As required by permits issued by Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, rangers were contacted by phone the week prior to all visits so they could be present on site if convenient. Rangers attended all visits at Henrietta Creek and Murray Falls; two attended Marrdja Boardwalk; but no rangers visited Davies Creek. During these visits potential indicators, management issues and procedures were discussed and findings to date passed onto the Rangers.
Table 3: Timetable of data Start Dry Wet 6 week wet Two- collection. May ‘01 Aug-Dec ‘02 Jan-May‘02 May-Jul ‘02 monthly
1 Site Inventory a 2 Traffic Counts a Observations of people 3 a a behaviour
4 Visitor Survey a a 5 Tour proforma a a a 6 Ranger proforma a a 7 Intensive Biophysical - quadrats a a
8 Intensive Biophysical - transect a 9 Photographic Record a a
PROCESS IN DEVELOPING THE HIERARCHICAL MONITORING SYSTEM
Three levels of data collection were trialed ranging from a very rapid assessment (Tour Operator Proformas), an intermediate assessment (Land Manager Proformas) and an intensive assessment undertaken by researchers (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Three levels of data collection and their intended users (refer Volume 1 for details).
8 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
The indicators used for each level of monitoring were developed in consultation with research colleagues, Wet Tropics Management Authority, Department of Natural Resource, Mines and Energy, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and members of the tourism industry. Proformas were then developed by Rainforest CRC researchers and trialed in both the wet and dry seasons with some modifications between seasons. Indicators were chosen to reflect visitor related activities and management issues.
TOUR OPERATOR PROFORMAS
The Tour Operator Proformas represent the first level of visitor monitoring. This level of monitoring is important in:
• assisting and providing information to trigger land management actions; • alerting land managers to problems; • triggering immediate action; • increasing awareness of changes in the environment; and • providing an early warning to trigger more intensive survey work.
It is recognised that tour operators make more frequent visits than land managers to most sites and are thus in a position to give an early warning of adverse impacts.
Process in the Development of the Proforma
The Tour Operator Proforma was developed by researchers in close consultation with Wet Tropics Management Authority staff. The process used in its development involved:
• two field trips with representatives of all stakeholders involved in visitation and use of Wet Tropics sites; • development of a proforma by researchers; • Meetings with key stakeholders (Wet Tropics Management Authority, James Cook University and Tourism Queensland staff); • field trip to trial proforma with researchers; • additional fieldtrip with WTMA and researchers; and • final production revision of the proforma by researchers.
Field trip with representatives of all stakeholder groups: field trips to Marrdja Boardwalk, Davies Creek and Henrietta Creek were conducted in a small bus to allow discussion en route with members of the Tourism Alliance Group and staff from Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Wet Tropics Management Authority and James Cook University. The objective of these trips was to seek agreement on goals and to explore how tour operators can assist with monitoring. During these field trips issues confronting tour operators visiting Wet Tropics sites were raised and discussed and were taken into account in the development of the Tour Operator Proforma.
Development of the proforma: following the field trips, Rainforest CRC researchers developed a proforma for use by tour operators that was considered relatively easy to complete; did not require any actual species identification; and monitored both changes in the environment and visitor behaviour.
Stakeholder meeting: a meeting was held with Max Chappell (Wet Tropics Management Authority), Robyn Wilson (Rainforest CRC researchers) and Emma Smith (Environmental
9 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
Tourism) to discuss the content of the proforma and an associated consultancy conducted for Tourism Queensland, i.e. Operator Impact Monitoring Guidelines, Tourism Queensland.
Workshop and field trip: a workshop and field trip including researchers and Wet Tropics Management Authority staff was then conducted to review the proforma and ensure that all information to be collected was relevant to management needs. This resulted in further refinement of the proforma prior to its trial by the tourism industry.
Arrangement of the proforma: the proforma is divided into sections to assist in isolating areas of impact. The first section provides broad generic information, the second provides information on the carpark and access road and the third contains information on the site. The latter is divided into a further three sections: 1) camp, picnic area and carpark, 2) walking track, and 3) freshwater.
Frequency of sampling: it is recommended that all tour operators conduct this survey once a week and incorporate it into their tour. This will allow a temporal overview of the use of a site in a day and where more than one tour operator is visiting at the same time, the opportunity to compare responses.
Tour operators who are interested in carrying out more intensive monitoring, e.g. bird or mammal lists or focusing on specific issues, e.g. use of the car park, feeding of wildlife, and dieback, are encouraged to do so and report changes to the appropriate land managers.
RESULTS OF TOUR OPERATOR PROFORMA TRIALS
At this stage only one of the four visitor monitoring sites (Marrdja Boardwalk) is being used on a regular basis by tour groups. To increase the sample size of the trial, tour operators visiting Mossman Gorge, a high use area used in the visitor survey (Bentrupperbäumer and Reser 2002), were included in the trial of the tour operator proformas by the industry. Particular issues at these sites include the use of bus parking by free and independent travellers and unauthorised tour groups, and visitors walking the wrong way around the boardwalk. These have been included in the proforma as they may be issues at other Wet Tropics sites where this proforma will be used in the future.
Eight companies were approached to participate in the trial of the Tour Operator Proforma. Six companies had permits to operate at Marrdja Boardwalk and Mossman respectively, and three had permits to both sites. The trial was conducted over a six-week period beginning on 27 May 2002. All companies participating in the trial were contacted on 9 July 2002 to thank them for their participation and to remind them to forward any returns they may have been accumulating.
One company, who did not return any completed forms, made the following comments:
“We have a permit to Marrdja Boardwalk but rarely use it. These proformas are unlikely to be done if they impinge on tour time. However, tours do have a stop at Hartleys Creek where the proformas could be completed.”
“Different guides within the company visit a site each day, so recording would not be consistent as different operators would vary in their interpretation.”
“Operators would have to refresh themselves with the proformas each time they use them, which takes time.”
Only two companies returned completed proformas. Both conducted the trial over five weeks. Most operators said their guides were too busy to trial the proforma. One guide stated that he
10 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
was currently involved in a cassowary watch and was recording date, time and location of sightings, however that was the extent of time he could afford for monitoring. The employee also stated that the main problem with trips to Cape Tribulation was that their duties kept the guide busy and, with full loads, the guides are fully occupied with their visitors, leaving them no time to undertake extra monitoring. The company had added 'extras' to their tours to attract a better share of the market but this meant the guides had more to do. It may be possible for these proformas to work where tours were more relaxed and didn’t cross the Daintree.
Other comments included:
“Consider simpler forms with fewer indicators.”
“Completing proformas takes the guide away from the tourists and would be frowned upon by his employer.”
“It takes time to become familiar with the task, and to read the instructions and purpose of the forms prior to starting a tour. This time is not given by the employer.”
“Have participated with surveys in the past but they have involved an extra person doing the survey and not the tour guide.”
“Concerned at the variation in education and skills of many guides and thus the consistency in quality of data collection, i.e. many of the guides do not recognise what constitutes a 'weed' species in the Wet Tropics.”
LAND MANAGER PROFORMAS
The second level of monitoring, to be conducted by land managers, is more comprehensive than that conducted by the tour operators. It is anticipated that it will be conducted twice per season. The monitoring conducted by both tour operators and land managers is complementary in that similar indicators are incorporated in both. There are three proformas for this intermediate level of monitoring: camp and picnic area proforma, walking track proforma and water feature proforma.
Where no tour operators visit a site, additional factors need to be considered in the land manager monitoring, e.g. status of the road and carpark. These are not on the Land Manager Proformas.
Development of the Land Manager Proforma
Each indicator on the Land Manager Proformas is assessed on a five point scale, i.e. 1 = not apparent; 2 = low impact; 3 = moderate impact; 4 = high impact; and 5 = very high impact; along with the required management, i.e. 1 = no action required; 2 = watch; 3 = needs attention; 4 = immediate action needed; and 5 = being addressed. The approach to using the Land Manager Proformas is to walk around the site, then complete the proforma allocating a score and type of management required to each indicator. Where there is uncertainty in scoring an indicator, then a second walk around the site will be required to ensure reliability. It is recommended that the assessment is undertaken by two people, or by a person trained in the assessment that is not associated with the site.
The scoring of indicators was further developed in an attempt to overcome the subjectivity inherent in qualitative assessments of indicators and to allow a condition score to be developed for a site (Volume 1). This involved developing a quantitative measure for each level of each indicator based on researcher experience and intuition, and a workshop
11 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser conducted with fourth year Environmental Management students from The University of Queensland. A panel of twenty-four people including managers, planners and rangers were then asked to participate in assessing the measures attributed to each level of each indicator. Six people responded (Table 4).
Refinement to the Land Manager Proforma
A second round was then conducted to determine weightings for each indicator based on the importance of each indicator in the a) natural environment; b) built environment; and c) human risk. Weightings provided by those that responded were highly variable; it was decided to report the methodology for this but not the findings, as they could be misleading. The vision was that a condition score for the natural environment, built environment and human risk would be calculated for each area (camp and picnic area, walking track and water feature) and this would be used to monitor change at a site over time (N.B. measures attributed to each level of each indicator are given in the Volume 1).
Table 4: Number of respondents who assessed the scaling for each indicator and provided weightings for the indicators. Round 1 Round 2 (Accessing Scaling) (Weighting Indicators) Respondent Group Approached Responded Approached Responded Academics 5 4 7 5 Planners and Managers 6 1 6 1 District Rangers 5 0 5 0 Rangers 8 1 8 0
RESULTS OF LAND MANAGER PROFORMA TRIALS
Human Litter
All transects were taken from the edge of the camp and picnic area into the forest. No belt transects were conducted at Marrdja Boardwalk as it does not have a camp or picnic area. The type of human litter detected along the belt transects was similar across the sites (Table 5). Those common to all sites included sharp items such as glass bottles and jars, beer cans and tins and soft items such as plastic bottles and sweet wrappers. Site specific items included tent pegs, bottle tops, aluminium foil and potato chip bags at Davies Creek; metal bike patches, metal piping, thongs and flagging tape at Henrietta Creek; and cigarette packets at Murray Falls. The greatest number of litter items was recorded at Davies Creek, followed by Henrietta Creek and Murray Falls. Most items were small and associated with picnic tables, however other items such as broken bottles were recorded within the bush.
12 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
Table 5: Number of items of different types of human litter identified at three sites along five, thirty metre long by one metre wide belt transects taken from the edge of the camp and picnic site into the forest.
Site Litter Davies Henrietta Murray Falls Glass* 21 6 3 Sharp Metal* 9 7 3 Plastic* 22 10 3 Soft Paper 1 14 1 *Glass and metal are risk factors; plastic is a problem to the environment and wildlife.
Trampling
There was negligible trampling recorded along the belt transects across the sites. Transects were conducted from the edge of the campground up to thirty metres into the forest. The exception being one transect conducted at Murray falls that linked the lower day use area to the upper camp area. Trampling did not appear to be a good indicator of human impact at sites with designated tracks.
13 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TOUR OPERATOR LEVEL
• Tour operator level of monitoring is feasible, i.e. two companies participated.
• The limited success of the trial may have been associated with how it was presented to the tour guides by the tour operator, i.e. guides need time to peruse instructions and may require demonstrations on what is required of them.
• Workloads vary between companies, possibly affecting the ability of tour guides to conduct monitoring.
• The number of companies completing the proformas was low, suggesting an independent surveyor may be required during the peak tourist season to undertake these surveys.
• Feedback would require a database that can be used by operators to allow them to enter data and receive immediate feedback.
• Presenting involvement in visitor monitoring to tour guides needs to highlight the following benefits: o it provides an avenue for involvement in management; o it provides an opportunity to involve visitors in monitoring; o it provides a point of interest for their tour; and o it assists in increasing visitor awareness of their surroundings.
LAND MANAGER LEVEL
• Monitoring needs to be considered under two categories, i.e. direct visitor impact and impact associated with management.
• Rangers should be encouraged to make observational comments on unusual activities in addition to other components.
• Standardised bird, reptile and mammal counts should be conducted at times when these animals are most active. Methodology for these counts is reported in most field technique texts and varies depending on the type of animals and vegetation being surveyed. Bird surveys conducted by Birds Australia and New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS 1996; Tierney and Morris 2002) use a standard design that consists of a survey of a two hectare site over a twenty minute period within three hours of sunrise.
• Feedback would require a database that can be used by land managers to allow them to enter data and receive immediate feedback.
• Two people need to be involved in the assessment, or a trained independent person to conduct surveys of all sites and take responsibility for providing feedback.
• Epiphytes and ferns were not obvious in camp and picnic areas, which may mean they have already been removed; epiphytes have died due to edge effects; or they were never prevalent in that area. If this is to be used as an indicator then a comparison of epiphytes in the forest with those in the camp and picnic area needs to be undertaken.
14 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS VMS
The results of the Tour Operator Proforma trial with the tourism industry showed work needs to be done to engage the tour operators and their guides in this monitoring. Some tour guides had no difficulty in completing the proformas over a six-week trial. The reasons some may have coped better than others include:
• they are more experienced guides; • they received strong support from their operators to undertake this monitoring; • they could see the value of participating in a Visitor Monitoring System; • they had already undertaken similar monitoring as part of their normal duties; or • they added value to their tour by letting visitors be involved in the process, and informed visitors they were assisting management, which enhanced their awareness.
Members of Tourism Alliance and Far North Tour Operators were very supportive of the Visitor Monitoring System, however feedback from the initial trial indicated the guides were struggling under increasing demands to offer more within their tours, and thus viewed the monitoring as another task.
DATABASE
The Visitor Monitoring System will generate a large amount of data, which needs to be contained within a database for analysis. Feedback needs to be given to those people who collect the data, and to management. It is important that data collection and input is kept up- to-date so that problems in data collection and problems at a site level are identified early.
FURTHER RESEARCH
Intensive Monitoring
The type of visitor to a site changes over time causing changes to the site itself. This will be identified through the Visitor Monitoring System and allow management to respond accordingly. It will be necessary to conduct intensive biophysical surveys to monitor environmental changes, in concert with visitor surveys to monitor visitor profiles so that sites are managed appropriately. A three-year cycle of monitoring at this intensive level, in line with government elections, is suggested unless the condition scores from ranger monitoring indicate that earlier biophysical monitoring is required. Further work needs to be done in developing composite scores of environmental indicators that identify certain types of impacts.
Wildlife-Human Interactions
There has been little research on the impact of humans on wildlife. This is primarily because most of our mammals are nocturnal, cryptic in colour and difficult to study. However, growing sectors of visitors are looking for tours that enable them to see wildlife. Research is needed on the impact of tourists on all forms of wildlife, e.g. birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates.
15
Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
MARRDJA BOARDWALK
LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION
Marrdja Boardwalk is located at sea level in the Daintree National Park (Cape Tribulation 16o01'S, 145o26'E) within the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area. It is accessed from the main road and is ca. 140 km north of Cairns. The access road to the site is sealed throughout its length but the car park is not. Parking is provided for nine cars and five buses. The site contains a circuit track that is hardened throughout its length, with a concrete path through the rainforest and a wooden boardwalk through the mangroves (Figure 4). The elevated area through the mangroves has a wooden railing at waist height; sections of this are also fenced.
Annual average rainfall is approximately 3500mm, strongly seasonal with seventy percent falling between the months of December to April. January’s mean daily temperature is near 28°C and July’s mean daily temperature is around 22°C. However, temperatures up to 36o are not unusual during the summer months.
The forest ranges from lowland tropical rainforest consisting of complex mesophyll vine forest (Type 1a, Tracey 1982) to mature mangrove forest towards the sea. There are a variety of robust woody lianas, vascular epiphytes, palms (both feather and fan), zingibers and aroids on the site and a high diversity of mangrove species. The canopy is irregular, varying from twenty-five to thirty-three metres in height. The dominant rainforest canopy trees belong to the Proteaceae, Meliaceae, Sapindaceae, Apocynaceae, Lauraceae and Myrtaceae families.
Day visitors frequently sight dove species, honeyeaters, Victoria's riflebird, orange footed scrubfowl, spotted catbirds, and parrots. Also sighted are several frog species, a variety of reptiles including Boyd's forest dragons, carpet and amethystine pythons, two colubrid snakes, spectacled flying foxes and pigs.
SITE MANAGEMENT AND ACTIVITIES
The land manager for the Marrdja Boardwalk site is Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service. The track was recently extended to form a circuit track to address issues of overcrowding experienced by some tour operators.
An inventory of infrastructure at the site is detailed in Bentrupperbäumer and Reser (2002). The desired Track Class for this boardwalk is 'Pathway 1' (Wet Tropics Walking Strategy 2001). The track is hardened and consists of concrete sections connected by wooden boardwalk over wet areas. Although the majority of use is restricted to the concrete and wooden boardwalk, there is a tendency for some users to step off the track, especially in the case of large parties and where people pass.
Nature Based Tourism Strategy: I1 (Icon 1) Opportunity to experience outstanding World Heritage Area features and values in small to medium groups. Strategies: Maximum vehicle capacity 35 persons; well-developed infrastructure; high on- site static and active interpretation. Priority: Nil. Wet Tropics Walking Track Strategy: Boardwalk; Pathway 1. Visitation: Thirty-nine commercial Tour Operators have access to this site (pers. comm. Mike Prociv Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, 2001). The main activities conducted at this site are walking and nature viewing. Main source of visitors are interstate and
17 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser international visitors on tours operating from Port Douglas and Cairns. There are no picnic or camping facilities at the site, but there are rest rooms.
Management Issues
• The car park has limited parking and deteriorates rapidly in wet weather. • Visitors do not follow path directions. • This site does not have bins or picnic facilities so visitors do not tend to stay after they have walked the track. Rangers blow the leaves off the boardwalk on a regular basis so little natural litter gathers on the track.
Figure 4: Schematic stylised diagram of Marrdja Boardwalk showing distribution of mangroves, rainforest and signage. Insert shows car and bus parking available at the site.
18 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
TOUR OPERATOR PROFORMA TRIAL
A pilot study trialing the Tour Operator Proforma was conducted firstly by researchers in the dry season on 12 December 2001, and in the wet season on 19 April 2002 (Appendix A1), and secondly in a six-week trial during June-July 2002 by the tourism industry (Appendix A2). Thirty-five indicators were trialed.
Key Findings of the Tour Operator Trial
• The car park requires maintenance, which has not been addressed. • Litter was recorded in the car park area on all trips, and three of the five trips on the boardwalk. Although in all cases it was rated as 'sparse', research has shown that the presence of any litter encourages others to litter and requires immediate attention. • Canopy death needs investigating, being recorded as sparse on four consecutive visits. It is probably due to the very dry conditions in the region or deciduous trees, but may be an early indicator of dieback. It may also be due to cyclone damage. • Inappropriate visitor behaviour, i.e. visitors walking the wrong way around the track.
Problems Recorded by Researchers, and not Tour Operator Trial
• Extensive evidence of feral pigs along the track. • Railing vandalised; this was addressed between surveys.
Similarity in Findings between Five Week Trial by Industry, and Research Trial
• Maintenance of the car cark is needed and not being addressed. • Litter, although sparse, is a persistent problem.
LAND MANAGER PROFORMA TRIAL
Visitors were present during both surveys. During the wet season survey, a spectacled flying fox colony was present in the mangrove area beside the boardwalk. Results of the trial of the Land Manager Proforma are presented in Appendix B1.
Key Findings from Ranger Proforma - Continuing Problems
• Potholes and bog adjacent to track due to feral pig damage, which requires attention. • Visitors stepping off the track to photograph a fig tree has led to mineral soil exposure. Need to fence off or provide platform to access tree. • Weeds adjacent to road section of the track require attention. • Railings require painting.
Human Related Activity
• Commercial tour groups and independent travellers walk the wrong way around the circuit track - this needs to be added as an indicator to the Land Manager Proforma. • Visitors were stepping off the track to approach forest dragons indicating the need for education on the impact of such behaviour on wildlife. • Visitors were stepping off the track to photograph a strangler fig.
19 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
Management Issues
• Potholes, gully erosion and boggy areas in the car park following rain. • Visitors stepping off the track to view wildlife and vegetation. • Railings splintering. • Pig activity widespread close to the track. • Exposed roots are common but considered to be natural, except in areas with pig damage. • Weeds adjacent to the track and bordering the car park. Mainly introduced grasses, requiring attention. • Traffic noise near the road. • Ferns/orchids below four metres were abundant with no sign of pilfering.
Recommendations
• Provide information for visitors and guides on the impacts on fauna if they approach too closely. • Provide information for visitors and guides on the problems they create by stepping off the designated track, e.g. mineral soil exposure, soil compaction, weed dispersal. • Fence areas where people are stepping off track, or provide a platform to allow them access to interesting items such as curtain figs. • Seal the car park. • Provide clear signage to direct people or install turnstiles to control movement in one direction. • Rangers need to remove the weeds or map where the weeds are to monitor spreading. • Vehicle speed needs to be kept down in the vicinity of the walkway for safety and to lower the impact of traffic noise.
SEMI-INTENSIVE BIOPHYSICAL RESULTS
Tests were conducted on the length of the boardwalk excluding the mangrove area. Samples of the tread, buffer and control were taken at twenty metre intervals. Statistical findings are summarised in Table 6. Note the tread area is concreted, so only one indicator, canopy cover, was appropriate to measure (Table 6).
Key Findings
Buffer and Control
• Two indicators were significantly different between the buffer and control, i.e. root exposure and woody debris. • Root exposure was greater in the control (mean rank 49.38) than the buffer (mean rank 31.63) indicating a high level of natural disturbance in the area. • Woody debris was greater in the control (mean rank 47.95) than the buffer (mean rank 33.05). • Mineral soil exposure and seedling density were approaching significance and indicated negative trends.
20 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
• Mineral soil exposure was greater in the buffer (mean rank 45.30) than the control (mean rank 35.70) and seedling density was greater in the control (mean rank 45.45) than the buffer (mean rank 35.55).
Seasonal Differences
• Two indicators were significantly different between seasons, i.e. organic litter depth and compaction. • Organic litter was greater in the wet (mean rank 65.10) than in the dry (55.90). • Compaction was greater in the dry (mean rank 61.41) than in the wet ((mean rank 34.14). • There were no interactions between season and location of sample, i.e. tread, buffer and control.
Table 6: Summary of indicator responses between seasons and between sampling location, i.e. tread zone, buffer and control.
Tread/ Season INDICATOR- Buffer cf. Wet cf dry buffer/ *sample Test BOARDWALK control control location
0.18 0.26 Mann Whitney Canopy cover - - and Kruskal N.S. N.S. Wallis ABOVE GROUND HEALTH – IMPACT ON SURROUNDING HABITAT Vegetation cover 0.69 0.30 N.S. 0.66 N.S. - ANOVA (%) N.S. Mineral soil 0.14 0.99 0.053 - ANOVA exposure (%) N.S. N.S. 0.25 Root exposure (%) 0.000*** - - Mann Whitney N.S. 0.38 Seedling density 0.055 - -- Mann Whitney N.S. GROUND LEVEL HEALTH REFLECTING STATE OF THE TRACK AND SURROUNDING HABITAT Mineral soil 0.14 0.99 0.053 - ANOVA exposure (%) N.S. N.S. 0.55 Organic litter (mm) 0.013* 0.93 - ANOVA N.S. 0.25 Root exposure (%) 0.000*** - - Mann Whitney N.S. Compaction (kgf 0.49 -2 0.03* - 0.822 N.S. ANOVA cm ) N.S. Erosion (%) 0.15 0.10 - - Mann Whitney INDICATORS OF BIODIVERSITY Organic litter cover 0.552 0.01** 0.93 - ANOVA (mm) N.S. Natural debris (%) 0.89 0.989 0.006** - ANOVA e.g. logs NS N.S. * P<0.05, ** P<0.01, *** P<0.001, N.S. not significant. Note: an ANOVA was used where the assumption of normality and homogeneity of variance were not voided. Otherwise a non-parametric Mann Whitney was used.
21 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
SUMMARY
The Marrdja Boardwalk a hardened site that is well maintained, however, the use of the proformas has shown that systematic monitoring will identify positive trends, trends in negative human related activities, and the need for maintenance. Human related activities include approaching wildlife too closely, and stepping off the track to view and take photographs of wildlife and plants, and littering. Management issues include maintenance of the car park, infrastructure (boardwalk and railing) and signs.
The Tour Operator Proformas indicate that signs require maintenance, however this was not noticed at higher levels of monitoring. Semi-intensive biophysical surveys indicated that high levels of root exposure were natural at this site, i.e. they were higher in the control than the buffer. However, mineral soil exposure and a decrease in seedling density on the edge of the track suggested visitors were stepping off the track.
22 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
DAVIES CREEK
LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION
This study site is located in the Davies Creek National Park (17o00'S, 145o34'E; area 486 ha), on the northeast border of the Atherton Tablelands. The site is accessed from the Kennedy Highway, between Mareeba and Kuranda by six kilometres of gravel road. This road becomes very corrugated between maintenance, prohibiting two-wheel drive access. There are numerous large woboys to divert water along the length of the road and on the steep five kilometre stretch of road between the camp/picnic area and the waterfall. The property on the approach to the site is being used for grazing cattle. The road-side vegetation is dominated by grass and weeds and is coated in dust. This site borders the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area but it was included in the study because of management issues related to local use that may also occur in the future at Wet Tropics sites.
Average annual rainfall at this site is 1469 mm, considerably less than that at the other three sites (Turton et al. 1999). In concert with the other sites, precipitation is seasonal with most rain falling in the wet season. The elevation at the site ranges between ca. 450 m at the camp and picnic area to ca. 594 m elevation at the waterfall. Davies Creek, a perennial watercourse traverses the study site. The bedrock at this site is predominately granite and due to the geology and dry climate, the area is dominated by medium and low woodland. Vegetation in the park is predominantly dry sclerophyll. There is a short section, ca. 200 m, of wet sclerophyll bordering the creek near the waterfall.
SITE MANAGEMENT AND ACTIVITIES
The Davies Creek site is managed by Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service. Its classification according to the Nature Based Tourism Strategy (Wet Tropics Management Authority 2000) is R1 – Recreation 1: Opportunities for small groups to experience the World Heritage Area and environs and recreate in a natural setting.
Strategies: Maximum vehicle capacity twelve persons; limited infrastructure; on-site basic interpretation. Action required: Site management review. Priority: Three site (actions that would expand the range of visitor opportunities but are not required in the short term; sites have not been subject to a preliminary overview by Rainforest Aboriginal people).
An inventory of the signage and facilities recorded during this study are reported in Bentrupperbäumer and Reser (2002). At the entrance to the park there is a fire risk sign and at the first pull-off bay a non-camping sign was erected during this study. At the main camping area is a registration booth with information on the park, whilst the carpark has regulatory and directional signage. The walking track circuit to the waterfall has limited signage, which is restricted to directional information and safety.
This site is primarily used by locals for picnics (Bentrupperbäumer and Reser 2002). It has low visitation, e.g. approximately 24,415 people per annum (Bentrupperbäumer and Reser 2002). There are two main activity nodes, a camp and picnic area and a waterfall circuit- track. Locals primarily use the camp and picnic area, whereas the waterfall circuit-track attracts other independent travellers. There are three camp and picnic areas; 1) a small pull off area that accommodates two to three vehicles; 2) main carpark area (ten vehicles); and 3) a third pull-off area that accommodates up to three vehicles. The main activity at the camp and picnic area is picnicking and swimming. Camping is allowed near the main car park but
23 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser there are no defined campsites. The bedrock is granite with little soil making it difficult for campers to find locations to erect tents. The picnic tables are not fixed and were moved by visitors between our visits. Most tables were positioned under trees. The creek was fast flowing but shallow with a few waist high water holes near the high use area and the substrate in this area was slippery.
DAVIES CREEK FALLS CIRCUIT
This is self-guided graded track (WTWS 2001) 850 m long located on the ridge above the camp/picnic area. The track leads to a lookout that provides excellent views of the gorge. The lookout is fenced but a section of the track that leads to the waterfall through some boulders is not, and is a potential risk to visitors. This section of the track is not as well defined as the rest of the track.
It is relatively easy to walk this track but the granite surface can be slippery on the steeper sections where there are no steps. It is not suitable for wheelchairs. The steeper section of the track (left branch from the car park to the falls) has some minor gully erosion caused by runoff. Between surveys an undesignated track appeared on a steeper section linking two points of the main track. The location of social (undesignated) tracks associated with the main track was mapped by Jenny Butler during this survey period and are illustrated in Figure 5 below.
Figure 5: Location of undesignated walking tracks at Davies Creek.
There is obvious root erosion along the flat section of the track that borders the river. A swimming hole, at the base of the right branch of the track from the carpark, has no facilities; undesignated camp fireplaces were noted at this site.
Rangers were contacted prior to all visits to this site but no rangers were present on any of the survey trips (six in the dry season and five in the wet season).
24 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
Management Issues
• Domestic dogs visiting the park with campers and day visitors. • Vandalism of trees and infrastructure. • Camping in non-camping areas. • Rubbish (drums of spent oil). • Access to the waterfall via the circuit track.
RESULTS OF TOUR OPERATOR PROFORMA TRIAL
A pilot study trialing the Tour Operator Proforma was conducted in the dry season on 6 December 2001 and in the wet season on 18 April 2002 (Appendix A3). A field trip to this site with members of the tourism industry, and Wet Tropics Management Authority, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service staff and researchers was conducted on 27 February 2002 to refine elements of the sampling. Key findings from the pilot study are presented below. Impacts were greater in the wet season than the dry. No commercial tour operators are operating at this site.
Key Findings of the Tour Operator Trial
• The access road to this site requires constant grading to enable the movements of two- wheel drive vehicles. During the first survey the road was corrugated, dusty and slippery, and dangerous even for a four-wheel drive vehicle. It had been freshly graded during our second survey and was accessible to two-wheel drive vehicles. • There is adequate parking for vehicles and all vehicles were parked in designated areas. • Trees were being vandalised within the camp/picnic area. • Weeds were widespread throughout the site and along the road. • Signs along the walking track required attention in both surveys. • Litter in the camp and picnic ground consisted of small items such as cigarette butts, plastic bread ties, tea bags and bottle tops. • Toilet block required attention, i.e. toilet seat not attached, missing glass in toilet window and graffiti recorded on both trips.
RESULTS OF LAND MANAGER PROFORMA TRIAL
Visitors were present during the first survey but not the second survey. Key findings and recommendations are presented for each of the activity nodes, e.g. the camp and picnic area, the walking track and freshwater feature, under two sub-headings – human related activities and management issues.
KEY FINDINGS FROM RANGER PROFORMAS
Camp and Picnic Area
Human Related Activity
• Undesignated tracks were recorded between the car park and camp and picnic area, camp and picnic area and creek, and car park to toilet. Campers commented that the tracks were being made as there was no easy access to camping areas.
25 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
• Litter was obvious during both surveys, consisting of cigarette butts, plastic wrappers detrimental to wildlife, and broken glass, tent pegs and bottle caps, which are potential risk factors to visitors. In general it consisted of a lot of small pieces. • Numerous instances of campfires in undesignated areas were recorded during both surveys. Undesignated campfires pose a risk to surrounding vegetation, which should be addressed. This suggests more barbeques should be provided at this site. Some maintenance of the barbeques had occurred between the first and second survey. • Evidence of infrastructure being vandalised was recorded during both surveys but was worse on the second survey. This was mainly due to the railings leading to the camp and picnic area being damaged (evidence of axe use). • In the main camp ground most of the trees adjacent to picnic tables and barbeques have been vandalized, i.e. initials carved into the trunk, trunks chopped with axe, top section of numerous trees cut. • A small dog not on a leash, with campers, was present during the first survey. The campers had been on site for four days. No domestic animals were observed during the second survey. • Greater ranger presence during public holidays is required at this site to lessen the risk of vandalism, monitor camping and visitors releasing dogs in the park.
Management Issues
• There is a dense stand of weeds along the edge of Davies Creek watercourse and in the camp and picnic area. The camp and picnic area had been whipper-snipped between surveys, however weeds were seeding and needed attention. • The carpark had erosion channels during the first survey and its condition had deteriorated by the second survey. Erosion gullies had deepened and extended the length of the carpark and were an obstacle to two-wheel drive vehicles, requiring attention. • There was a non-active wasp nest on the roof of the registration booth, which was not a risk but required attention. • A forty gallon drum discarded near the toilet block and left there for some time is aesthetically and environmentally unsatisfactory. • Problems identified at the toilet block during the first survey, which had not been addressed by the second survey, included missing louvres in both male and female toilets, toilet seat not attached in the female toilet and graffiti on the wall in male toilets. • Exposed roots around the camp and picnic area were due to local hydrology but may be aggravated by visitor activity. Recommend that access points be monitored for root exposure and erosion.
Graded Walk
Human Related Activity
• Infrastructure damage - damage to the railing in the car park, perspex over sign at waterfall was broken, requiring attention. • Undesignated track - a new track approximately fifteen metres long and 0.5 metres wide on a steep slope between the main track appeared between our two sampling periods. This was receiving attention. • Fire scars from undesignated fires near creek but close to vegetation. These will be washed away in rains but these are a problem in the dry as they damage the trees and may cause wild fires.
26 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
• Litter, although minor, needs attention as it encourages others to leave litter.
Management Issues
• A short star-picket used to secure a fence bordering the track. This is a potential hazard to walkers and needs covering. • Gully erosion along track, resulting from local hydrology, was present on both surveys and needs attention as it is a human risk factor. • Mineral soil exposure needs watching. • Weeds were widespread throughout the area. These are difficult to control but recommend they are kept under control along the edge of the track which is the current practice. • Exposed roots prevalent along the bank bordering the river appear to be the result of local hydrology, i.e. associated with flooding but the increase suggests that it is being compounded by visitation. May need to move the track away from edge of the bank.
Other Points of Interest
A currawong was observed carrying nesting material during first survey in December 2001. Reptiles sighted included freshwater turtles and skinks. A platypus was observed between the waterfall and waterhole during one visit but not during the survey.
Freshwater Feature
The impact area refers to the five metres of non-wetted area either side of the creek. This section of water was associated with the camp and picnic area. Visitor related activity, such as undesignated campfires and tracks, and litter, reported here are additional to those recorded in the camp/picnic area.
Human Related Activity
• An undesignated short track on the bank opposite the picnic area to the base of a tree with a rope-swing attached. • Litter included cigarette butts. • Remnant of a campfire at base of tree bordering creek during both surveys and fires scars on trees. • Vegetation damage to lower branches of eucalypts. • Rope attached to a tree, on opposite bank from the picnic area, hanging over very shallow water and slippery rocks. This was hanging down during the first trip but looped over a branch during the second visit and should be removed.
Management Issues
• Weeds were dense along the edge of Davies Creek watercourse during both surveys. During the second survey, a fifty metre stretch of bank bordering the picnic camp area was scored for the presence or absence of weeds at one metre intervals. Weeds occurred in 37 of the 50 one-square-metre samples in a punctuated pattern. The bank on the opposite side consisted of a solid stretch of tall, dense grass. Surveys need to monitor a fifty metre long by one metre wide stretch of bank for weeds on a regular basis. • Algae on rocks in creek were a danger to people paddling and swimming.
27 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
Continuing Problems
• Undesignated campfires by water hole. • Trees being vandalised. • Maintenance of infrastructure not being attended to.
SEMI-INTENSIVE BIOPHYSICAL RESULTS
Camp and Picnic Area
Seven indicators were trialed at four camp and picnic nodes in the dry season, and five in the wet season (see Table 7). Management intent at the day-use and camp and picnic area is to keep the vegetation mown and free of debris, therefore the impacts of human activity on the surrounding habitat is of particular interest. Significant differences between the buffer and control, then between the tread, buffer and control were examined (see Table 7).
The data voided assumptions of normality and homogeneity required for parametric analysis, with the exception of percentage vegetation cover and canopy cover, so non-parametric tests have been used unless stated which did not allow for testing for interactions between season and zone.
Table 7: Summary of indicator responses between seasons (wet and dry) and zone (tread, buffer and control; n = 20) measured at four camp/picnic nodes in the dry season and five in the wet season at Davies Creek.
Season Season Buffer and Tread/buffer/ Indicator (buffer and control (tread, buffer and Control control data only) control data) Bare soil (%) * * ** * NS Vegetation cover (%) ** NS *** Interaction NS Litter cover (%) NS NS *** NS Litter depth (mm) NS * *** NS Seedlings ** NS ** NS Compaction (kg cm-2) * NS ** * NS Canopy cover (%) NS NS NS Interaction NS * P<0.05, ** P<0.01, *** P<0.001, N.S. = not significant. Non-parametric Mann Whitney and Kruskal Wallis tests were used as the data voided the assumptions of homogeneity of variance.
Key Findings for Camp and Picnic Nodes
• Four of the seven indicators were significantly different between the buffer and control. • Vegetation cover was significantly different in the control than in the buffer and tread, indicating the impact was encroaching on the buffer. • Mineral soil exposure was higher in the tread zone than in the buffer and control, associated with visitor use. • Vegetation cover was correlated with mineral soil exposure, litter depth, seedling density and compaction (Spearman's Rho -0.544, 0.553, 0.527, -0.552).
28 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
• Canopy cover was not significantly different across zone (tread, buffer or control) or between seasons. • Significant changes occurred between mineral soil exposure and litter depth between seasons, which were both greater in the wet.
Walking Track
• Ten indicators were trialed in the dry season and thirteen in the wet season. Additional indicators measured in the wet season were height of grass, broadleaf and woody plants. • Three indicators were found to vary significantly between the buffer and the control (Table 8). Fungi were not recorded in either the wet or dry season in any of the quadrats ( n= 120) and no vines were recorded across the track in either season.
Tread, buffer and control
• No significant difference in human litter among the tread, buffer and control. • No significant difference in leaf tip death among the tread, buffer and control. • Ten indicators were significantly different between the tread, buffer and control. Those that are important to management are bare ground, root exposure, litter cover, litter depth and erosion.
Table 8: Summary of indicator responses between seasons (wet and dry) and zone (tread, buffer and control; n = 20) measured at 22 metre intervals along the graded track.
Season Tread/ Season Season * INDICATORS - Buffer cf. (buffer and Buffer/ (based on all Zone WALKING TRACK Control control) Control data) Interaction INDICATORS OF ABOVE GROUND HEALTH vegetation cover (%) NS NS *** * - bare ground (%) ** NS *** NS - root exposure (%) NS NS * * - seedling density NS NS *** NS - canopy cover (%) NS ** NS *** - INDICATORS OF GROUND LEVEL HEALTH bare ground (%) ** NS *** NS - litter cover (%) NS *** *** NS - organic litter (mm) NS *** *** * - root exposure (%) NS NS * * - compaction (kgf cm-2) ** NS *** NS * Erosion (scale/%) **/* NS/NS */* NS/NS - woody debris NS NS *** NS - INDICATORS OF INVERTEBRATE DIVERSITY litter cover (%) NS *** *** NS - organic litter (mm) NS *** *** * - woody debris NS NS *** NS - * P<0.05, ** P<0.01, *** P<0.001, N.S. = not significant. Note: an ANOVA was used where the assumption of normality and homogeneity of variance were not voided. In other cases, non-parametric Mann Whitney and Kruskal Wallis were used.
29 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
Buffer and Control
Significant indicators were those associated with soil, e.g. mineral soil exposure (bare ground), compaction, erosion and broadleaf weeds.
There was no significant difference in the height of the grass or woody plants between the buffer and control. However, there was a significant difference in the height of the broadleaf in the buffer compared to the control (Chi sq. 3.90, d.f. 1, P=0.05). This was primarily due to snake week (Verbena).
Mineral soil exposure (bare ground), compaction, erosion and broadleaf weeds were all significantly greater in the buffer than the control:
Indicator Buffer Mean Rank Control Mean Rank mineral soil exposure 46.67 34.33 compaction 47.31 33.69 erosion 44.84 36.16 broadleaf weeds 23.67 17.33
Season
• Based on all data, four indicators were significantly different between season, i.e. ground cover, exposed roots, depth of litter and canopy cover. • Based on buffer and control data, seasonal differences occurred in natural litter cover and depth, and canopy cover. • Litter depth was greater in the wet (mean rank 50.71) than in the dry (mean rank 30.29). • Litter cover was greater in the wet (mean rank 49.00) than in the dry (mean rank 32.00). • Canopy cover was greater in the dry (mean rank 48.59) than in the wet (mean rank 32.91) which was counter-intuitive.
Key Findings for Walking Track
• Activity within the tread zone is impacting on soil properties bordering the walking track and resulting in an increase in broadleaf weeds. • Track widening (range 22-430 cm) was recorded at seven of twenty sampling sites along the track in the dry but only one of the twenty in the wet season. • Loose stones under foot were recorded on the steeper section of the track in eight of twenty samples along the track in the dry (Table 9). • There are sections of the track that are difficult to negotiate due to loose substrate and gullying.
30 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
Table 9: Ease of walking on Davies Creek track in the dry season determined from twenty quadrats taken along the track. Scale: 1 = very easy; to 5 = very difficult.
Ease of Walking Number of Quadrats Percent very easy 12 60 easy 2 10 moderate gradient/some loose stones 1 5 difficult -loose substrate, slippery 4 20 very difficult - loose substrate, gullying, steep 1 5 Total 20 100
Management intent is to keep the tread zone graded and free of vegetation, i.e. grass, broadleaves or woody plants. Therefore height of vegetation on graded tracks or leaf litter, bare ground and vegetation on board walks between the tread zone and the buffer and control were not compared as they do not relate to visitor impacts. However, the number of quadrats on the tread zone with vegetation present, and the height of the vegetation in the tread zone, indicate quality of management (Table 10). Where tall (more than 0.5 metres) vegetation occurs frequently it may impact on visitors forcing them to step off the track into the buffer zone. Thus where the tread zone has tall vegetation occurring in several quadrats it will be necessary to compare the height of vegetation between it and the buffer zone.
Table 10: Frequency of occurrence (range of heights) of different types of vegetation in quadrats measured along the walking track.
Control Buffer Tread (n=20) (n=20) (n=20) 18 18 9 Grass (450-110mm) (105-1600 m) (100-470 mm) 4 11 1 Broad leaf (85-390 mm) ( 50-500 mm) (80 mm) 10 7 2 Woody (50-1200 mm) (100-1320mm) (50-120 mm)
A range is reported rather than mean and SE, and as in most cases, there is a uniform spread of heights across all the categories. The exception was height of grass in the control, where seven quadrats contained grass of 570-600 mm in height; and the height of woody plants in the control, where seven quadrats had plants was more than 340 mm high.
Table 11: Number of quadrats with litter or leaf tip death along the walking track at Davies Creek.
Control Buffer Tread Total (n=20) (n=20) (n=20) (n=60 quads) Human litter 1 1 1 3 Leaf tip death 11 7 4 22
31 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
Few litter items were recorded within the quadrats with no evidence that visitors were throwing their rubbish into the forest along the walking track.
Leaf tip death was higher in the control than the buffer and tread primarily due to greater tree density of foliage in the control. This was not due to human activity but to dry conditions.
SUMMARY
• Weeds are a problem in the camp and picnic area, along the watercourse and track but are receiving attention. Surveys need to monitor a fifty metre long by one metre wide stretch of bank for weeds on a regular basis. • Numerous undesignated fire scars in the camp and picnic area suggest more barbeques need to be provided at this site or that the barbeques that are available are not suitable. Some maintenance of the barbeques had occurred between the first and second survey. • Vandalism to native vegetation requires addressing, e.g. initials carved into the trunk, trunks chopped with axe, top section of numerous trees cut. • A greater ranger presence is required during public holidays at this site to lessen the risk of vandalism, monitor camping and visitors releasing dogs in the park. • Semi-intensive biophysical monitoring indicated the impacts of visitation were encroaching into the tread zone.
Continuing Problems
• Undesignated campfires by water hole. • Trees being vandalised. • Maintenance of infrastructure not being addressed.
32 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
HENRIETTA CREEK AND NANDROYA FALLS TRACK
LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION
Henrietta Creek and Nandroya Falls (17o36'S 145o47'E) are located between Innisfail and Millaa Millaa. Nandroya Falls track commences approximately one hundred metres north of Henrietta Creek camp and picnic ground. The site is accessed from the Palmerston Highway.
Average annual rainfall for Millaa Millaa, approximately twenty kilometres north west of Henrietta Creek, is 2708 mm. The wettest months are December to May (range 208-464 mm) with monthly rainfall of less than 145 mm during the rest of the year (Wilson 2000). Mean annual temperature is 20.5oC. This data was collected at the Post Office in Millaa Millaa (altitude 831 m). Henrietta/Nandroya Falls is a mid-elevation site (ca. 550 m) and much wetter (>3,500 mm). Soil is basalt and it supports a complex mesophyll vine forest with trees 25-30 metres tall.
SITE MANAGEMENT AND ACTIVITIES
This site is managed by Queesnland Parks and Wildlife Service, and is within the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area. Two rangers service this site; one of whom is an Aboriginal ranger not from this area.
An inventory of the signage and facilities recorded during this study is included in Bentrupperbäumer and Reser (2002). At the entrance to the park are signs indicating the management agencies. In the camp and picnic area there is a registration booth for campers and a notice board with regulatory and educative information. Along the track from the eastern end of the campground following Henrietta creek are informative signs on wildlife. There are few sign on the Nandroya track and those that exist are directional.
Nandroya Falls circuit is a graded track. It is rated as 'high priority' for addressing actions in the Wet Tropics Walking Strategy (WTWS) (2001). The WTWS also identified the need to provide a footbridge across Henrietta Creek to link Henrietta camp and picnic area to the start of the track so as to insulate walkers from the highway. During this study access to the start of the walk required crossing either Henrietta creek or the Palmerston Highway. Management intent is to keep the tread zone of the track free of vegetation, i.e. grass, broadleaves or woody plants, and hardened to prevent erosion.
Nature Based Tourism Strategy: R2 (Recreation 2) Providing opportunities for large numbers of people and groups to experience outstanding World Heritage Area features and values. Strategies: Highly developed infrastructure; high on-site and off-site static and active interpretation. Review facilities. Priority: 2. Action required: Master planning for Palmerston Area. Visitation: The main activities conducted here are walking, picnicking, camping, and Aboriginal visitors occasionally fish at the site. March flies were present during both surveys and were deterring visitors. Observations of people using this site indicated that most visitors were stopping to use the toilet facilities only and did not venture into the rest of the park (Bentrupperbäumer and Reser 2002).
33 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
An Aboriginal concern, relating to the proposed canopy walkway in close proximity to this park, is that people will wander into the forest and interfere with culturally sensitive areas. Biophysical findings indicate that people are not venturing into the forest but remaining on the tracks.
Management Issues
• Domestic dogs. • Access to Nandroya walking track from Henrietta camp and picnic area. The access is via a busy highway used by large trucks or via a creek crossing that subject to flooding in the wet season.
TOUR OPERATOR PROFORMA TRIAL
A pilot study trialing the Tour Operator Proforma was conducted in the dry season (11 December 2001) and wet season (13 April 2002). A field trip to this site with members of the tourism industry, and Wet Tropics Management Authority and Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service staff and researchers was conducted 27 February 2002 to refine elements of the sampling. The ranger responsible for Henrietta/Nandroya joined us on site. Key findings from the pilot study are presented in Appendix A4.
Key Findings from Tour Operator Trial
• Access and car parking requires attention. • There was evidence of feral pigs along the track during both surveys but not in the camp and day-use area. • Weeds were common bordering the access and the camp and day-use area on both surveys but more noticeable in the wet season. • The track was well maintained but vines and branches had fallen across the track on both trips. • No commercial tour operators are operating at this site.
RESULTS OF LAND MANAGER PROFORMA TRIALS
Scores and required actions for visitor related activities and management issues recorded during the wet and dry season using the ranger proformas are presented in Appendix B3, and key findings are reported below.
Camp and Picnic Area
• Campers were present during both surveys. Five camp and picnic nodes were used for conducting biophysical measurements (Figure 6).
Human Related Activity
• Undesignated tracks associated with campsites were observed during both surveys, but were few in numbers. These were short (less than five metres long) and did not lead to anything, suggesting they may have been used as toilet stops. However, no toilet paper was found in the vicinity. • Litter, consisting of small items such as plastic ties and cigarette butts, was present on both visits.
34 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
• During the second survey evidence of animals scavenging was recorded, e.g. a bag of food scraps was recorded adjacent to a camping site. A musky rat kangaroo was observed feeding on the contents, and the remnants of a take-away meal were scattered in the female toilets. It appeared that this has been left for the ranger to take away but an animal had opened and dispersed the contents before the rangers visit. • Fire scars from an undesignated fire were recorded at one campsite on the first survey but not during the second survey. • Infrastructure damage included a broken seat at the picnic table at the first camping bay recorded on the second survey.
Figure 6: Location of map and nodes at Henrietta Creek.
Management Issues
• Potholes and bogs associated with the road were recorded on both surveys but had increased in extent and number by the second survey. • Road noise associated with the movement of heavy transport vehicles on the Palmerston Highway was obvious within the camp and picnic area on both surveys. • Mineral soil exposure was minor but occurring around high use areas such as the picnic shelter and the water tap. • Weeds were obvious around the edge of the forest bordering the camp and picnic area on both surveys. • A pied butcher-bird was observed scavenging at the main picnic shelter on the first survey. • Picnic tables need cleaning of a build-up of grime on the seats and tabletops, and barbeque facilities were broken and needed replacing.
35 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
Nandroyan Falls Track
Human Related Activity
No impacts associated with human activities were recorded in either survey along the track.
Management Issues
• Storm damage was recorded during the second survey. This resulted in a mudslide, fallen debris and hazardous plants across the track. Debris was recorded in culverts on the first survey; fresh debris associated with the storm was recorded obstructing the culverts on the second survey. Loose stones and track structure damage was associated with the storm. The loose stones were located at creek crossings and not the main section of the track and were a greater problem on the second survey following the rain than the first. • Weeds were recorded along the edge of the track during both surveys and were very obvious at the falls during both surveys. • Pig activity was obvious during both surveys along the edge of the track.
Fresh Water Feature
Human Related Activity
• A shortcut (undesignated track) between the main track and Henrietta Creek was created between the two surveys. This was approximately three metres long and 0.3 metres wide.
Management Issues
• During both surveys, weeds were very obvious on the banks, islands within the creek near the camp and picnic area and the access points on both sides of the creek. • Bank erosion due to hydrological factors was apparent on both surveys.
KEY FINDINGS FROM RANGER PROFORMA
• Weeds were common bordering the camp and picnic ground, Nandroya Creek and Falls, and along the track but did not appear to be penetrating far into the forest. They were more prevalent during the wet season survey. • The site road had deteriorated between the surveys and car parking needed attention. • There was evidence of pigs along the track during both surveys but not in the camp and day-use areas. • The track was well maintained but vines and branches had fallen across the track on both trips.
SEMI-INTENSIVE BIOPHYSICAL RESULTS
Camp and Picnic Area
Seven indicators were measured across five camp/day-use areas in the dry and wet seasons (Table 12). Results and interpretations are presented for analyses on the tread, buffer and control; and buffer and control and season. Three sets of indicators were highly correlated:
• litter and vegetation cover (Spearman’s rho = -0.734);
36 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
• litter depth and seedlings (Spearman’s rho = 0.685); and • litter depth and compaction (Spearman’s rho = -0.589).
Tread, Buffer and Control
• All seven indicators were significantly different between the tread, buffer and control. • Litter depth, seedling and compaction were significantly different. • There were fewer seedlings in the tread as the area is mown. • Compaction in the picnic and day-use area was double that in the buffer and control. • Litter depth in the picnic and day-use area was approximately quarter that in the buffer and control. • Litter cover was much higher in the control than the tread and buffer. • Surprisingly, mineral soil exposure was much greater in the buffer than the tread or control.
Buffer and Control
• Four of the seven indicators were significantly different between the buffer and control. • Vegetation cover was significantly greater in the buffer than control suggesting an edge effect, but litter cover was significantly greater in the control than the buffer. • Canopy cover and bare soil were also greater in the control than the buffer suggesting some openness in the forest near the camp and picnic area.
Season
None of the seven indicators varied significantly between seasons using all data, however, compaction varied significantly between season based on buffer and control data. It was greater in the dry (mean rank 13.55) than the wet (mean rank 7.45).
Table 12: Summary of indicator responses between seasons (wet and dry) and zone (tread, buffer and control; n =20) measured at five camp/picnic nodes in the dry and wet at Henrietta Creek.
Season Season Buffer and (buffer and Tread/buffer/ Indicator (tread, buffer Control control data control and control data) only) Bare soil (%) * NS * NS Vegetation cover (%) *** NS * NS Litter cover (%) ** NS * NS NS Litter depth (mm) NS NS *** Interaction NS Seedlings NS NS *** NS Compaction (kg cm-2) NS * *** NS Canopy cover (%) * NS ** NS * P<0.05, ** P<0.01, *** P<0.001, N.S. = not significant. Non-parametric Mann Whitney and Kruskal Wallis tests were used on all data, except litter depth, as the data voided the assumptions of homogeneity of variance. An ANOVA was used to test for differences in litter depth across zone and season.
37 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
Nandroya Falls Track
Ten indicators were trialed in the dry season and thirteen in the wet (Table 13). The additional indicators measured in the wet season were height of grass, broadleaf and woody plants.
Table 13: Summary of response of indicators between seasons (wet and dry) and zone (tread, buffer and control; n = 20) measured at 110 m intervals along the graded track (see Appendix D for tables of statistical analyses).
Season Tread/ Season INDICATORS - Buffer cf. Season * zone (buffer and Buffer/ based on all WALKING TRACK Control Interaction control) Control data INDICATORS OF ABOVE GROUND HEALTH vegetation cover (%) NS - NS - - bare ground (%) NS NS ** * - root exposure (%) NS NS *** NS - seedling density NS NS *** NS - canopy cover (%) NS NS NS NS - INDICATORS OF GROUND LEVEL HEALTH bare ground (%) NS NS ** * - litter cover (%) NS NS NS NS - organic litter (mm) * *** *** *** - root exposure (%) NS NS *** NS - compaction (kgf cm-2) * ** *** *** *** Erosion (scale/%) NS NS **/*** **/NS - woody debris NS * *** ** - INDICATORS OF INVERTEBRATE DIVERSITY litter cover (%) NS NS NS NS - organic litter (mm) * *** *** *** - woody debris NS * *** ** - * P<0.05, ** P<0.01, *** P<0.001, N.S. = not significant. Note an ANOVA was used where the assumption of normality and homogeneity of variance were not voided. In other cases, non-parametric Mann Whitney and Kruskal Wallis were used.
Tread, Buffer and Control
• Eight of the ten variables were significantly different (Table 14) across the tread, buffer and control with this difference being primarily between the tread and the buffer/control. • Mineral soil exposure, root exposure and erosion were less in the tread than the buffer and control, suggesting adequate management, i.e. surfacing the track, was in place. • Woody debris, litter depth, and seedling density were less in the tread than buffer and control, in line with management intent. • Compaction was much higher in the tread than the other two zones in line with management intent.
38 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
Table 14: Significant differences across tread, buffer and control at Nandroya Falls track.
Mean Rank Indicator Tread Buffer Control % mineral soil exposure 47.27 69.79 62.63 % root exposure 37.50 66.5 77.95 % woody debris 44.24 62.14 75.13 % erosion 47.46 72.34 61.70 Compaction 91.49 49.19 37.00 Litter depth 33.72 65.20 82.57 Seedling density 32.41 76.59 72.50
Buffer and Control
• Three indicators were significantly different between the buffer and the control, i.e. litter depth, compaction and height of grass. • Litter depth and compaction were correlated (Spearman's rho -0.642, P<0.01). • Compaction was greater in the buffer than the control indicating a negative effect. • Litter depth was greater in the control than buffer suggesting an edge effect. • Grass was significantly higher in the buffer (mean rank 22.50) than the control (mean rank 18.50; Chi-sq. 4.31, d.f.=1, P=0.04), suggesting an edge effect. • There was no significant difference between the height of the broadleaf and woody plants between the control and buffer.
Season
• Track widening was observed in the dry season (five of the twenty sample points had track widening ranging from fifty to five hundred centimetres) but not in the wet season. • No fungi was recorded in the wet season and only two of 120 quadrats had fungi in the dry, i.e. one in the buffer and one in the control. • Woody debris, litter depth and erosion were greater in the wet than the dry season. • Compaction was greater in the dry than the wet season. • No vines were recorded across the track in either season.
SUMMARY
• The road within the park was identified as needing attention at all levels of monitoring but this was not being addressed. • Weeds were identified as a problem bordering the camp and picnic area in both Tour Operator and Land Manager Proformas. • Infrastructure, i.e. picnic tables need maintenance, identified at all levels of monitoring. • Food scraps were attracting animals resulting in scavenging around the camp and picnic area. • There was a build-up of litter in the forest bordering the camp and picnic with many items of risk to wildlife and humans; identified in intensive monitoring but not during monitoring with Tour Operator and Land Manager Proformas.
39
Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
MURRAY FALLS
LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION
Murray Falls State Forest Park (18o09'S, 145o49'E; elevation ca. 116 m) is at the foothills of the Kirrama Range between Cardwell and Tully, Queensland, in the southern section of the WTWHA. It is approximately forty-two kilomtres north of Cardwell and is reached via the Bilyana turn off, a sealed road branching off the Bruce Highway. This road passes through the Jumbun community and leads to the park. The last four kilometres are gravel road and may not be passable to two-wheel drive vehicles following heavy extended periods of rain.
This site receives an average annual rainfall of approximately 2118 mm (Turton et al., 1999) with most of the rain falling in the wet season (ca. 1351 mm). Geology at the site is comprised of granite. Vegetation at Murray Falls is primarily lowland tropical rainforest consisting of mesophyll/ notophyll vine forest. This vegetation surrounds the camp/picnic area and is found along the first section of walking track and bordering the water course. The last section of the walking track, leading to the falls, is dominated by dry sclerophyll woodland. Hydrological features of this site are Murray River and Murray Falls.
Figure 7: Site at Murray Falls showing location of sampling nodes for semi-intensive biophysical assessment.
41 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY
This site is in Jumbun country, the home of the Girrmay, Jirrbal and Gulngay people. At the commencement of this study the local community centre was contacted and a meeting organised with the chairperson, Ms Marcia Jerry, to discuss the project and their involvement in monitoring visitation to this site. Of particular interest to Marcia was the signage that the community developed. A photographic record of the signs was taken during the study and is presented in Bentrupperbäumer and Reser (2002). At the meeting we discussed the areas that we were interested in working in within the park and asked if any of these were sensitive to the community and should not be entered, or recorded in our report. The areas we worked in were part of the public area.
Dr Dermont Smyth is currently developing the cultural indicators with the Girrmay, Jirrbal and Gulngay people in a separate project that will provide valuable information for future visitor monitoring.
SITE MANAGEMENT AND ACTIVITIES
The Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy managed this site up to eighteen months ago but it is now managed by Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service. Two rangers, one of whom is an Aboriginal ranger from Cardwell, service this site twice a week.
This site has an extensive picnic (day-use area) and camping area, a board walk to the base of the waterfall and a longer graded walk to the top of the waterfall. Approximately 15,950 people per year walk the longer Murray Falls Rainforest Walk (Dorrie pers. comm. 2001). There are three parking bays in the lower picnic area with a total of nine parking spots. The upper picnic camp area does not have designated parking areas and visitors are allowed to park on the grass beside tents and tables. An inventory of infrastructure at the site is detailed in Bentrupperbäumer and Reser (2002).
Nature Based Tourism Strategy (WTMA 2000): R2 (Recreation 2) Recognised as a site of interest to Aboriginal people with potential for cultural tourism and management by Aboriginal people and of a traditional walking track to Kirrama Range. Visitation: The main activities conducted at this site are camping, picnicking, swimming and walking. Visitors to the site are mainly from Tully. Visitation at this site dropped dramatically following the introduction of GST and it is now almost half pre-GST. Two of twelve regular seasonal visitors from south visited in 2001 and 2002 (pers. comm. Mike, Ranger). A second reason for a decline in visitation is young people moving away from the region. March flies are present in large numbers for many months of the year and do deter visitors.
Management Issues
• Inappropriate swimming at the waterfall, visitors clambering over rocks, and a lack of understanding of the consequences of their actions, e.g. this is a sensitive area to the Aboriginal community, and people are at risk of falling and dying (five people have been killed at this site). • Visitors leaving trail, i.e. jumping over rail at the end of both trails to access water holes. • People swimming at waterfall. • Vandalism has also been a problem, e.g. shooting, rubbish, taking guide posts and graffiti. Other problems have been campers changing car oil in the park and leaving oil drums, cutting saplings for tee-pees, and taking orchids. On the track, the main management issues are drainage and erosion (pers. comm. W. Dorrie, Forest Officer, 2001).
42 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
• Brush turkeys and goannas have been observed scavenging at this site but neither have been observed scavenging in bins. The bins are elevated, lined with plastic inserts and have a flip lid to prevent scavenging by animals. • Three days were spent at the site on each visit - one day conducting tours and ranger surveys and talking to rangers and the community, one day conducting the biophysical survey of the walking track and one day conducting the biophysical survey of the picnic ground and water body feature.
TOUR OPERATOR PROFORMA TRIAL
A pilot study trialing the Tour Operator Proforma was conducted in the dry season on 6 December 2001 and in the wet season on 8 May 2002. Results are presented in Appendix A5. Impacts were greater in the wet season than the dry. There had been some heavy rain prior to the wet season survey and the access road was churned up with a three to four metre long and seven metre wide muddy area. It was passable in a two-wheel drive with care. There was ample parking for vehicles and all vehicles were parked in designated areas. During the wet season survey, bark was stripped from trees and people were observed using undesignated tracks between the upper camp and picnic area and lower day- use area.
Weeds were recorded around the camp and picnic area and walking track in both seasons. Signs along the walking track needed attention in both surveys. Litter was not recorded along the walking track or the camp and picnic ground on either of the surveys.
No commercial tour operators are operating at this site. Indigenous horsetrail and bush tucker tours have been conducted at this site in the past but these are no longer operating.
Key Findings from Tour Operator Proforma
• Access to the site is a problem in the wet season; sections of the access road need work. • Weeds are extensive throughout the campground and need attention. • Signs need maintenance. • Human litter was minimal but present where people were accessing the water.
RESULTS FROM LAND MANAGER PROFORMA TRIAL
Currently there is no tour operation at this site, therefore the land manager proformas represent the first level of monitoring until this situation changes. Data was collected during the dry season on 6 December 2001 and in the wet on 9 May 2002 at three nodes. These comprised the camp and picnic area, the walking track and a water body near the picnic ground that is used for swimming. Data is presented in Appendix B4.
Photographic locations and aspects for monitoring of the camp and picnic area are shown in Figure 8.
Camp and Picnic Area
• Visitors were present at the site during both surveys.
43 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
Human Related Activity
• A new track had appeared between the upper camp and picnic area and the lower day- use area in the time between the two surveys. This was down a steep bank.
Figure 8: Photographic location and aspects for monitoring of the camp and picnic area at Murray Falls.
• Several of the trees in the campground had their bark stripped off during the wet. The rangers were aware of this and said it happens during the wet season as campers are looking for material to start fires (N.B. firewood is provided at this site). • Litter was minor during both surveys, i.e. two cigarette butts and a plastic bag. Rangers were present and cleaning the area during both surveys. • Sharp objects, e.g. tins and bottles (no broken glass) were recorded on the edge of the camp area. • During the second survey, a kookaburra was scavenging at the picnic table while people were eating and banging its beak on the roof of the shelter. • Graffiti (initials) was found on a table.
Management Issues
• Root exposure was not apparent in the camp and picnic area proper, but an ungraded track on the lower level leading from the day-use area to steps that lead to the upper camp and picnic area has very high exposure of minor roots. • The camp and picnic area was mown and tidy, however bordering greater than fifty percent of both picnic and camp area during both surveys were paw paw, pineapple, non- native ginger, and passionfruit, lantana, introduced grasses, bamboo and snake weed (Stachytarpheta cayennensis). Paw paw were fruiting during the first survey and being eaten by wildlife. Passionfruit was wide spread, fruiting and being distributed by wildlife during the second survey. Lantana was fruiting during the second survey.
44 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
• There was minor mineral soil exposure around picnic areas, but very obvious around some barbeques. This was being addressed with paving. • Pig digging was recorded on the edge of the forest at the entrance to the walking track and firewood stack during the second survey. This was not apparent during the first survey. • Stripping trees of bark during the wet season needs attention.
Walking Track
Human Related Activity
• There had been an increase in size and use of undesignated tracks near the lookout/waterfall, but all of these were being attended to, i.e. prohibited entry signs. Such tracks are an on-going problem at this site. There are clear, visible signs warning people of the danger of serious injury if people venture off the track at the top of the waterfall. Present on both surveys was a short track from the upper camp and picnic area to the graded track near the start of the rainforest track that needs revegetating. • The increase in litter between surveys was due to three cans near start of track. • Weeds were occurring along the edge of the track and some patches of lantana were observed in the forest. The edge of the track had been sprayed prior to our second survey. • Graffiti was recorded on the railing at the observation platform during the second survey
Management Issues
• Exposed roots were more apparent during the second than first survey in the rainforest area. It was not an issue on the dry sclerophyll section of the track but rangers were re- surfacing the track during our second surface to address this. • Loose stones on the track were recorded on the dry sclerophyll section of the track only, during both surveys.
Other Issues and Observations
• There was minor leaf tip death observed in the dry sclerophyll section of the track during the second but not the first survey, which was most probably related to the extended dry period. • Bracket fungi was observed on live trees during the second survey but not noted during the first survey. • A monitor lizard and skinks were sighted along the rainforest track.
Freshwater Feature
Human Related Activity
• There were new short cuts (undesignated tracks) between the picnic area and water hole between the two surveys. These need watching as they have the potential to result in bank erosion. • Cigarette butts were recorded on the bank at the main entry point during both surveys. • A campfire had been built at the base of a tree causing a fire scar in the tree. • Initials carved on one tree.
45 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
• Weeds were very obvious on the picnic-side of the bank near the visitor use section.
Management Issues
• Exposed roots were recorded where visitors were accessing the water, primarily hydrological but exacerbated by human use.
Figure 9: Location of camp and picnic area, day-use area and graded rainforest walk at Murray Falls.
SEMI-INTENSIVE BIOPHYSICAL RESULTS
Fixed points were identified for photographic monitoring as shown in Figure 9.
Camping and Picnic Area
Seven indicators were trialed at eight camp and picnic nodes in the dry and wet season (Table 15). Management intent at the day-use and camping and picnic area is to keep the vegetation mown and free of debris. Significant differences between the buffer and control, and between the tread, buffer and control were investigated to determine whether human activity is impacting on the surrounding habitat.
Data did not meet the required criteria for parametric analysis so non-parametric tests were used. These did not allow testing for interactions between season and zone. There were significant seasonal effects demonstrated with all indicators based on data collected in the buffer and control.
46 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
Table 15: Summary of indicator responses between seasons (wet and dry) and zone (tread, buffer and control). Three replicates were taken at each of the eight camp/picnic nodes (n = 72 one-square- metre quadrats).
Season Season INDICATOR Buffer and (buffer and Tread/buffer/ (tread, buffer Camp and Picnic Area Control control data control and control only) data) Bare soil (%) * *** *** ** Vegetation cover (%) *** *** *** *** Litter cover (%) NS *** *** NS Litter depth (mm) *** ** *** NS Seedlings *** * *** *** Compaction (kg cm-2) *** *** *** *** Canopy cover (%) *** *** *** *** * P<0.05, ** P<0.01, ***P<0.001, N.S. = not significant. Non-parametric Mann Whitney and Kruskal Wallis tests were used as the data voided the assumptions of homogeneity of variance.
Key Findings
• Six of the seven indicators were significantly different between the buffer and control. • All indicators were significantly different across the three zones. • Bare soil was greater in the control than the buffer. This is counter-intuitive and would be expected to be greater at the edge if associated with human impact. Bare soil was significantly greater in the tread than the buffer and control. • Vegetation cover was higher in the buffer than control but this was due to dense weedy species which graded to more open vegetation in the control. • Litter was higher in the control than the buffer. • Canopy cover was highest in the control (higher canopy cover would reduce the light level in the understorey and possibly vegetative growth resulting in the greater extent of bare ground in the control compared to the buffer. • Seedlings were highest in the control than in the buffer. • Compaction was higher in the buffer than control, and higher in the tread than buffer. • Significant differences were demon-strated between all the wet and dry season indicators when using buffer and control data only. When including the tread, five of the seven indicators showed significant seasonal effects.
140
120
100 % Litter cover Figure 10: Mean percentage of cover of bare ground, vegetation 80 % Ground vegetation and leaf litter within the eight cover 60 camp/picnic areas, buffer (edge % cover % Bare ground of the camp/picnic area) and 40 control (ten metres from edge). 20
0 dry wet dry wet dry wet Tread Buffer Control
47 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
Seasonal Differences
• Ground vegetation cover increased in the wet. • Leaf litter decreased in the wet. • Bare ground decreased in the tread during the wet and increased in both the buffer and control (Figure 10).
Walking Track
• The location of the graded rainforest walk and the associated social trails were mapped in the dry season during this study (Figure 11). Note that social trail three is a track used by the Jumbun community. • Ten indicators were trialed of which only one, bare ground, was found to vary significantly between the buffer and the control (Table 16 ). • There was no interaction between season and zone but significant variation was apparent between seasons in the case of several indicators.
Figure 11: Location of undesignated tracks at Murray Falls.
48 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
Table 16: Summary of indicator responses between seasons (wet and dry) and zone (tread, buffer and control; n = 20) measured at 47 metre intervals along the graded track at Murray Falls.
Season Tread/ INDICATORS Buffer cf. Season * (buffer and Buffer/ Test Walking Tracks Control zone control) Control INDICATORS OF ABOVE GROUND HEALTH vegetation cover (%) *** NS - - Mann Whitney bare ground (%) NS * - NS ANOVA
** (b/c) Mann Whitney & root exposure (%) NS NS - *** (t/b/c) Kruskal Wallis seedling density * NS - - Mann Whitney canopy cover (%) NS - NS NS ANOVA INDICATORS OF GROUND LEVEL HEALTH bare ground (%) NS * - NS ANOVA litter cover (%) NS NS - NS ANOVA organic litter (mm) NS NS - NS ANOVA
** (b/c) Mann Whitney & root exposure (%) NS NS - *** (t/b/c) Kruskal Wallis compaction (kgf cm-2) NS NS - NS ANOVA erosion *** NS - - Mann Whitney woody debris NS NS - - Mann Whitney INDICATORS OF INVERTEBRATE DIVERSITY litter cover (%) NS NS - NS ANOVA organic litter (mm) NS NS - NS ANOVA woody debris NS NS - - Mann Whitney * P<0.05, ** P<0.01, *** P<0.001, N.S. = not significant. Note: an ANOVA was used where the assumption of normality and homogeneity of variance were not voided. In other cases, non-parametric Mann Whitney and Kruskal Wallis were used. b/c = buffer, control; t/b/c = tread, buffer, control.
Key Findings
• There were no significant interactions between sampling location and season with any of the indicators. • Percentage cover of bare ground was the only indicator that varied significantly between the buffer and control. • Significant change in other indicators was associated with season. • Percentage root exposure was significantly higher in the dry than the wet season. • Seedling density was higher in the dry than the wet season. • Percentage ground vegetation cover was significantly higher in the dry than the wet season. • Percent erosion was significantly higher in the dry than the wet season.
49 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
140.00 Above: Dry Season 120.00 % Wood debris 100.00 % Ground fungi % Rock 80.00 ver % Root
60.00 % Litter % co % Ground vegetation Figure 12: Mean percentage 40.00 % Bare ground of cover of seven quantitative 20.00 factors recorded in the tread, buffer (edge of track) and 0.00 control (ten metres into the Tread Buffer Control forest) zones along the graded track at Murray Falls 100 (n = 20, one-square-metre 90 quadrats per set).
80 % Wood debris 70 % Ground fungi 60 % Rock 50 % Root
%cover 40 % Litter 30 % Ground vegetation Below: Wet Season 20 % Bare ground 10 0 Tread Buffer Control
Management Impacts at Murray Falls
• The first three hundred metres of the track to the top lookout has been recently resurfaced with decomposed granite. • The border of both the camp and picnic area and the walking track had been sprayed. Grass and seedlings were dead up to a metre from the edge. The ranger was spraying the edge of the camp ground whilst we were monitoring. The border along the section of the track in the dry sclerophyll had died back as a result of the spray. No seedlings were observed in the quadrats bordering the track.
Litter not in quadrat but visible from track:
• Beer can three metres from track (250 metres from start at camp ground). • Bag of set concrete ten metres in (550 metres along track). • Yoghurt container (600 metres). • Bandaid (600 metres along track). • Beer can metres from track (750 metres from start).
50 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
SUMMARY
No commercial tours visit this site, therefore the monitoring undertaken by rangers is the first level of monitoring. At sites where this occurs, the land manager level of monitoring will need to include additional factors, e.g. status of the road and carpark, and status of signage. It would be advisable to have an independent person(s) make an assessment of the site. The importance of the tour operator level of assessment in identifying and triggering an assessment of level of concern and trends in condition is demonstrated in the following examples.
Weeds were identified as a management issue at the tour operator level of assessment and shown to be at the higher level of concern and in need of immediate attention using the Land Manager Proforma. Inappropriate visitor behaviour (use of undesignated tracks) was identified at the tour operator level and shown to increase from low level of concern to intermediate level of concern by the second survey using the Land Manager Proforma. A strong negative trend in vegetation damage was also recorded with the Land Manager Proforma. Evidence of feral animals was identified in the Tour Operator Proforma. The level of concern, discerned from the Land Manager Proforma, was low in the dry season but increased to intermediate between surveys suggesting a negative trend.
The semi-intensive biophysical assessment was able to address how visitation is impacting on the surrounding forest and whether there are negative environmental impacts taking place. For example, measurements demonstrated that exposed mineral soil (bare ground) was greater in the tread than the buffer and control in the camp and picnic areas in both seasons suggesting a negative impact from visitation. This was primarily associated with picnic tables and barbeques. Compaction was also greater in the tread and buffer than the control suggesting the impacts from visitation were encroaching into the forest.
A positive trend in the camp and picnic areas, in line with management intent, was greater vegetative growth, a decrease in leaf litter and bare ground in the tread zone between surveys and little change in these indicators in the buffer and control between seasons.
Differences in seasonal trends between the camp and picnic area and the walking track were associated with wet season management e.g. spraying of border vegetation. Rangers had sprayed the edge of the walking track prior to our wet season survey reducing the vegetation cover and killing the seedlings in the buffer zone. This impact was recorded at the researcher level of monitoring but not at the tour operator or ranger levels. Spraying of the habitat bordering the camp and picnic ground was in progress while we were conducting our wet season sampling and had not yet taken effect.
The greater percentage of bare soil recorded in the buffer compared to the control along the walking track in both seasons is a negative response and suggests either animals using the edge of the track (edge effect), visitors stepping off the tread zone or hydrological effects related to the track and its location. This needs further investigation.
51
Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
LINKS BETWEEN VISITOR PERCEPTIONS AND MEASURED BIOPHYSICAL IMPACTS
INTRODUCTION
Most studies of visitation and use of sites rely on findings from visitor surveys (questionnaires) and traffic counts to estimate visitor numbers for setting management actions (see Volume 1). In this research project we have taken a holistic approach to sampling by incorporating data on visitor surveys, visitor numbers (traffic counts), observations of peoples behaviours, and biophysical analyses (see reports Bentrupperbäumer and Reser 2002). In this section, we attempt to combine results from visitor surveys with those obtained from biophysical monitoring undertaken during the same period at the same sites.
METHOD
Visitors’ perceptions of the status of the soil condition, water quality, presence of weeds, condition of vegetation, wildlife scavenging, deliberate human impacts on infrastructure, and presence or evidence of feral and domestic animals were obtained during a visitor survey conducted at the camp ground or entrance to four study site, i.e. Marrdja Boardwalk, Davies Creek, Henrietta Creek and Murray Falls (see attached for section of survey instrument investigating visitors perceptions of environmental impacts). The modal score of visitors responses (see Bentrupperbäumer and Reser 2002, for raw data) were compared with biophysical scores recorded and reported in this report. Note that a 1-6 point scale was used in the visitor survey, whereas a 1-5 point score was used in the biophysical assessment.
RESULTS
Separate tables comparing perceptions and biophysical measurements have been created for each site (Table 17). A combined table to show responses across sites demonstrates that visitor perceptions of environmental impacts is dependent on site (Table 18).
Table 17: Modal scores of visitor perceptions and biophysical measurements at a) Marrdja Boardwalk; b) Davies Creek; c) Henrietta Creek; and d) Murray Falls in the wet season (April 2002). Key: 1 = low impact to 6 = high impact; ↓ = biophysical measurement less than perceived impact; ↑ = biophysical measurements higher than perceived impact; = agreement between biophysical measurements and perceived impact.
Visitor Ranger’s Perception. Biophysical Marrdja Boardwalk Agreement Visitor Survey Measurement. Mode. Scale 1-6 Scale 1-5 Soil Condition – evidence of erosion 2 2 = Water quality – evidence of pollution 2 NA (tidal) Presence of weeds 2 2 = Condition of vegetation (eg. trampling, 2 1 ↓ breakage, ring-barking, fire scars Deliberate human impacts on infrastructure – 1 1 = evidence of graffiti, vandalism Presence or evidence of feral and/or domestic 1 5 ↑ animals, cane toads, pigs or dogs etc.
53 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
Native wildlife behaviour – evidence of 2 1 ↓ scavenging, tameness Visitor Ranger’s Perception. Biophysical Davies Creek Agreement Visitor Survey Measurement. Mode. Scale 1-6 Scale 1-5 Soil Condition – evidence of erosion 3 3,4 ↑ Water quality – evidence of pollution 1 1 = Presence of weeds 4 3 =
Condition of vegetation (eg. trampling, 1,4 3 = breakage, ring-barking, fire scars (bimodal) Deliberate human impacts on infrastructure – 1 3 ↑ evidence of graffiti, vandalism Presence or evidence of feral and/or domestic 1 1 = animals, cane toads, pigs or dogs etc.
Native wildlife behaviour – evidence of 1 1 = scavenging, tameness
Visitor Ranger’s Perception. Biophysical Henrietta Creek Agreement Visitor Survey Measurement. Mode. Scale 1-6 Scale 1-5 Soil Condition – evidence of erosion 4 2 ↓ Water quality – evidence of pollution 5 2 ↓ 3,4 Presence of weeds 5 ↑ (bimodal)
Condition of vegetation (eg. trampling, 3,6 1 ↓ breakage, ring-barking, fire scars (bimodal) Deliberate human impacts on infrastructure – 1 3 ↑ evidence of graffiti, vandalism Presence or evidence of feral and/or domestic 1 1 = animals, cane toads, pigs or dogs etc. Native wildlife behaviour – evidence of 1 1 = scavenging, tameness Visitor Ranger’s Perception. Biophysical Murray Falls Agreement Visitor Survey Measurement. Mode. Scale 1-6 Scale 1-5 Soil Condition – evidence of erosion 1 2 ↑ Water quality – evidence of pollution 1 1 = Presence of weeds 1 5 ↑ Condition of vegetation (eg. trampling, 1 5 ↑ breakage, ring-barking, fire scars Deliberate human impacts on infrastructure – 1 2 ↑ evidence of graffiti, vandalism Presence or evidence of feral and/or domestic 1 3 ↑ animals, cane toads, pigs or dogs etc. Native wildlife behaviour – evidence of 1 2 ↑ scavenging, tameness
54 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
Table 18: Comparison of visitor perceptions and biophysical measurements across sites. Key: ↓ = biophysical measurement indicate lower impact than that perceived by visitors; ↑ = biophysical measurements indicate higher impact than perceived by visitors; = agreement between biophysical measurements and visitor perception.
Marrdja Davies Henrietta Murray Indicator Boardwalk Creek Creek Falls Soil Condition – evidence of erosion = ↑ ↓ ↑ Water quality – evidence of pollution = = ↓ = Presence of weeds = = ↑ ↑
Condition of vegetation (eg. trampling, ↓ = ↓ ↑ breakage, ring-barking, fire scars Deliberate human impacts on infrastructure – = ↑ ↑ ↑ evidence of graffiti, vandalism Presence or evidence of feral and/or domestic ↑ = = ↑ animals, cane toads, pigs or dogs etc. Native wildlife behaviour – evidence of ↓ = = ↑ scavenging, tameness
KEY FINDINGS
• Water quality was the only indicator where there was reasonable agreement across sites between peoples’ perceptions and the biophysical assessments. • Biophysical measures suggest infrastructure damage is higher than that perceived by visitors. • Weeds and evidence of feral animals are more likely to be higher than peoples’ perceptions suggest. • Soil erosion, vegetation damage and scavenging show no clear trend between peoples’ perceptions and biophysical assessments.
DISCUSSION
Several studies conducted on people's perceptions of environmental impacts suggest that they identify more direct impacts of visitation such as litter rather than the biophysical impacts (Manning 1986; Bentrupperbäumer and Reser 2000; Moscardo 1997). However, some research suggests there is a growing awareness amongst visitors of the impacts that they may cause to the environment (Bryden 2001; Hillery et al. 2001; Bentrupperbäumer and Reser 2000, 2002). The results of this research suggest that this may depend on the site, e.g. at Davies Creek and Marrdja Boardwalk there was general agreement between results of the visitor survey and estimates from ranger proformas, however, at Henrietta Creek visitors were more likely to overestimate impacts, and at Murray Falls visitors under estimated the biophysical impacts of the majority of indicators.
Murray Falls was until recently under the management of Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy. They have maintained the same staff who have a forestry recreation approach to park management. Bins are provided at this site in contrast to the other sites. This and the overall cleanliness of the camp/picnic area may have influenced visitors’ perception of environmental impacts occurring at this site.
55 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
In this section we have compared visitors perceptions of environmental impacts with environmental assessments made using the ranger proformas developed in this study. Measurements conducted by the researchers need to be converted into a score and compared with those obtained using the ranger proformas. This was not undertaken due to time constraints. However, results indicate that visitors’ perceptions of environmental impacts do not identify or accurately reflect levels of environmental impacts undertaken at a more intensive level. Thus management cannot rely on responses from visitor surveys in identifying environmental impacts when setting management actions. This study strongly supports the need for implementing a visitor monitoring system that incorporates biophysical assessments of sites if visitation is to be sustainable.
56 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
REFERENCES
Bentrupperbäumer, J. M. and Reser, J. (2000) Impacts of Visitation and Use: Psychosocial and Biophysical Windows on Visitation and Use in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area. Final Report Stage 2. Rainforest CRC, Cairns.
Bentrupperbäumer, J. M. and Reser, J. (2002) Measuring and Monitoring Impacts of Visitation and Use in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area: A Site Based Bioregional Perspective. Rainforest CRC, Cairns.
Bryden, N. (2001) Recreational Displacement of Local Residents in the Wet Tropics of Queensland: Implications for Planning and Management. Unpub. Masters, James Cook University.
Buchanan, R. (1987) The Bushwalk Book of South-east Queensland. Bushpeople Publications, Cairns.
Cole, D. N. (1986) Recreational Impacts on Backcountry Campsites in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, USA. Environmental Management 10(5): 651-659
Cole, D. N. (1992) Modeling Wilderness Campsites: Factors that Influence Amount of Impact. Environmental Management 16(2): 255-264
Driml, S. (1997) Towards Sustainable Tourism in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area. Report to the Wet Tropics Management Authority, Cairns.
Hammitt, W. and Cole, D. (1998) Wildland Recreation. Ecology and Management. Second Edition. John Wiley and Sons. New York.
Hillery, M., Nancarrow, B., Griffin, G. and Syme, G. (2001) Tourist Perception of Environmental Impacts. Annals of Tourism Research 28(4): 853-867.
Jim, C. Y. (1987) Trampling Impacts of Recreationists on Picnic Sites in a Hong Kong Country Park. Environmental Conservation 14(2):117-127
Kluck, T. (1998) Comparative Visitor Impacts Across Selected Rainforest, Littoral and Wet Sclerophyll Communities in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area. Unpublished Honours thesis, James Cook University, Cairns.
Manning, R. (1986) Studies in Outdoor Recreation: Search and Research for satisfaction. Oregon State University Press, Oregon.
Moscardo, G. (1997) Visitor Satisfaction at Selected WTWHA Sites. Report prepared as a result of CRC TREM Workshop, 8 May 1997.
NPWS. (1996) NSW Comprehensive Regional Assessments: Vertebrate Fauna Surveys, 1996-1997 Summer Survey Season, Field Survey Methods. Unpublished report for the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service for the Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy.
Tierney, D. A. and Morris, A. K. (2002) A Test of Monitoring Methodology for the Conservation Management of Birds. Pacific Conservation Biology. 8: 2-61.
57 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
Turton, S. M., Hutchinson, M., Accad, A., Hancock, P. and Webb, T. (1999) Producing Fine- scale Rainfall Climatology Surfaces for Queensland's Wet Tropics Region. In: Geodiversity: Readings in Australian Geography at the close of the 20th Century. (Eds. J. A. Kesby, J.M. Stanley, R. F. McLean and L.J. Olive), pp. 415-428. Special Publication Series No. 6, Canberra, ACT, School of Geography and Oceanography, University college, ADFA, 630 pp.
Turton, S. M., Kluck, T. and Day, R. J. (2000) 'Ecological impacts of visitors at day-use and camping areas'. In: Bentrupperbäumer, J. & J. Reser (Eds.), Impacts of Visitation and Use in the Wet Tropics of Queensland World heritage Area, Stage 2, pp. 123-134. Cairns: Rainforest CRC.
Wilson, R. F., Turton, S. M., Bentrupperbäumer, J. M., Reser, J. P., and Curtis, I. A. (2003) Development of a visitor monitoring system for the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area. Rainforest CRC: Cairns.
58 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
APPENDIX A – TOUR OPERATOR PROFORMAS
A1 SUMMARY TRIAL BY RESEARCHERS AT MARRDJA BOARDWALK
TOUR OPERATOR PROFORMA
Key: Absent = 0; Present = 1 0 1
Key: Three point scale (absent; minimal; extensive). 0 1 2 NR = Not Recorded; NA = Not Applicable Date 12-Dec-01 11-Jan-02 19-Apr-02 Time 1145-1430 1050 1050 Weather Sunny Sunny Sunny INDICATORS Car park – full? 0 0 0 No. tour buses <21 3 1 2 No. tour buses >21 0 0 0 No. cars 1 2 1 Infrastructure Access/maintained 0 0 0 Car park/maintained 1 1 1 Facilities/maintained 0 0 0 Facilities/clean 0 0 0 Hazards minor/major 0 0 0 Birds 0 0 0 Animals/Roadkill Reptiles 0 0 0 Mammals 0 0 0 Feral dog 0 0 0 Feral pig 0 0 1 Animals/Sighted Feral cat 0 0 0 Feral (other) 0 0 0 Evidence Pigs 1 1 1 Access 1 1 1 Weeds Picnic Area Litter 1 1 1 Vandalism 1 0 0 Visitor Behaviour/Picnic Feeding animals 0 0 0 Scavenging animals 0 0 0 Inappropriate visitor behaviour 0 0 0 Pilfering 0 0 0 Visitor Behavior/Picnic (cont’d) Inappropriate tour operations 0 0 0
59 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
Track condition 0 0 0 Track Signs condition 0 0 0 Track hazards 0 1 0 Litter 1 0 0 Track/Visitor Behaviour Vandalism 0 0 0 Inappropriate visitor behaviour 0 0 0 Feral dog 0 0 0 Feral pig 1 1 1 Track/Sightings Feral cat 0 0 0 Feral (other) 0 0 0 Pigs 2 2 2 Track/Evidence Canopy death NR NR NR Bracket fungi 0 0 0
60 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
A2 SUMMARY OF TRIAL BY THE TOURISM INDUSTRY AT MARRDJA BOARDWALK
(Data collected by same person)
TOUR OPERATOR PROFORMA Company: Key: Absent = 0; Present = 1 0 1 Commercial Key: Three point scale 0 1 2 (Absent = 0; Minimal = 1; Extensive = 3) Key: NR = Not Recorded; NA = Not 21 Jun 28 Jun 12 Jul 19 Jul 25 Jul Date Applicable 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 Time 1440 1445 1455 1440 1500 Weather 2 1 1 2 1 Survey 1 2 3 4 5 Indicators ID 1 Car park/full? 0 0 0 1 0 2a No. tour bus <21 4 3 2 0 2 2b No. tourbus >21 0 0 0 0 0 3 No. cars 6 4 7 12 7 Infrastructure 4 Access/maintained 0 0 0 0 0 5 Car park/maintained 1 1 1 1 1 6 Facilities/maintained 1 1 NR 0 0 7 Facilities/clean 0 NR NR 0 NR 8 Hazards minor/major 0 0 0 0 1 9a Birds 0 0 0 0 0 Animals/roadkill 9b Reptiles 0 0 0 0 0 9c Mammals 0 0 0 0 0 10a Feral dog 0 0 0 0 0
Animals 10b Feral pig 0 0 0 0 0 sighted/Access 10c Feral cat 0 0 0 0 0 10d Feral (other) 0 0 0 0 0 Animals/evidence 11 Pigs NR NR NR NR NR 12 Access NR NR NR NR NR Weeds 13 Picnic Area NR NR NR NR NR 14 Litter 1 1 1 1 1 15 Vandalism 0 0 0 0 0 16 Feeding animals 0 0 0 0 0 Visitor 17 Scavenging animals 0 0 0 0 0 behaviour/picnic 18 Inappropriate visitor behaviour 1 0 0 0 0 19 Pilfering 0 0 0 0 0 20 Inappropriate tour operations 0 0 0 0 0
61 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
21 Track condition 0 0 0 0 0 Track 22 Signs condition 0 0 0 0 0 23 Track hazards 0 0 0 0 0 24 Litter 1 1 0 0 1 Visitor 25 Vandalism 0 0 0 0 0 behaviour/tracks 26 Inappropriate visitor behaviour 0 0 0 1 1 27a Feral dog 0 0 0 0 0
Animals 27b Feral pig 0 0 0 0 0 sighted/Tracks 27c Feral cat 0 0 0 0 0 27d Feral (other) 0 0 0 0 0 Evidence Animals 28 Pigs NR NR NR NR NR 29 Canopy death NR 1 1 1 1 Vegetation 30 Bracket fungi NR 0 1 1 1 31 Film NA NA NA NA NA 32 Smell NA NA NA NA NA Water 33 Litter NA NA NA NA NA 34 Clarity NA NA NA NA NA 35 Flow NA NA NA NA NA
62 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
A3 SUMMARY OF TRIAL BY RESEARCHERS AT DAVIES CREEK
TOUR OPERATOR PROFORMA Key: Absent = 0; Present = 1 0 1 Key: Three point scale (Absent, Minimal, Extensive) 0 1 2 Date 17/12/01 18/04/02 Time 1130-1145 1045 Weather Overcast Sunny INDICATORS Carpark/full? 0 0 No. tour bus <21 0 0 No. tourbus >21 0 0 No. cars 0 0 Infrastructure Access/condition 1 0 Carpark/condition 1 1 Facilities/condition 1 1 Facilities/cleanliness 0 0 Hazards 1 1 Birds 0 0 Animals/roadkill Reptiles 0 0 Mammals 0 0 Feral dog 0 0 Feral pig 0 0 Animals/sighted Feral cat 0 0 Feral (other) 0 0 Access 2 2 Weeds Picnic Area 1 2 Litter 1 2 Vandalism 1 1 Feeding animals 0 0 Visitor behaviour/picnic Scavenging animals 1 0 Inappropriate visitor behaviour 0 0 Pilfering 0 0 Inappropriate tour operations 0 0 Track condition 1 1 Track Signs condition 1 1 Track hazards 1 0 Litter 1 1 Visitor behaviour/on track Vandalism 0 1 Inappropriate visitor behaviour 0 0
63 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
Feral dog 0 0 Feral pig 0 0 Animals/on tracks Feral cat 0 0 Feral (other) 0 0 Animal/ Evidence Pigs 0 0 Canopy death 0 0 Vegetation Bracket fungi 0 0 Film 0 0 Smell 0 0 Water Litter 0 1 Clarity 0 0 Flow 3 3
64 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
A4 SUMMARY OF TRIAL BY RESEARCHERS AT HENRIETTA CREEK
TOUR OPERATOR PROFORMA Key: Absent = 0; Present = 1 0 1 Key: Three point scale (Absent, Minimal, Extensive) 0 1 2 Date 11/12/01 13/04/02 Time 1050 0900 Weather Sunny Sun/O'cast INDICATORS Carpark/full? 0 0 No. tour bus <21 0 0 No. tourbus >21 0 0 No. cars 2 0 Infrastructure Access/condition 1 1 Carpark/condition 1 1 Facilities/condition 0 0 Facilities/cleanliness 0 0 Hazards 0 0 Birds 0 0 Animals/roadkill Reptiles 0 0 Mammals 1 0 Feral dog 0 0 Feral pig 0 0 Animals/sighted Feral cat 0 0 Feral (other) 0 0 Evidence Pigs 0 0 Access 1 2 Weeds Picnic Area 2 2 Litter 0 0 Vandalism 0 0 Feeding animals 0 0 Visitor behaviour/picnic Scavenging animals 0 0 Inappropriate visitor behaviour 0 0 Pilfering 0 0 Inappropriate tour operations 0 0 Track condition 0 0 Track Signs condition 0 0 Track hazards 1 1
65 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
Litter 0 0 Visitor behaviour/tracks Vandalism 0 0 Inappropriate visitor behaviour 0 0 Feral dog 0 0 Feral pig 0 0 Animals/tracks Feral cat 0 0 Feral (other) 0 0 Evidence Pig 1 1 Canopy death 0 0 Vegetation Bracket fungi 0 0 Film 0 0 Smell 0 0 Water Litter 0 0 Clarity 0 0 Flow 2 3
66 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 3: Case Studies
A5 SUMMARY OF TRIAL BY RESEARCHERS AT MURRAY FALLS
TOUR OPERATOR PROFORMA Key: Absent = 0; Present = 1 0 1 Key: Three point scale (Absent, Minimal, Extensive) 0 1 2 Date 6/12/01 8/05/02 Time 1110 1100 Weather Sunny Sunny INDICATORS Carpark/full? 0 0 No. cars 4 8 Access/maintained 0 1 Infrastructure Carpark/maintained 0 0 Facilities/maintained 0 0 Facilities/clean 0 0 Hazards minor/major 0 1 Birds 0 0 Animals/roadkill Reptiles 0 0 Mammals 0 0 Feral dog 0 0 Feral pig 0 0 Animals/sighted Feral cat 0 0 Feral (other) 0 0 Animal /evidence Pigs 0 2 Access 2 2 Weeds Picnic Area 2 2 Litter 0 0 Vandalism 0 1 Feeding animals 0 0 Visitor behaviour/picnic Scavenging animals 0 1 Inappropriate visitor behaviour 0 1 Pilfering 0 0 Inappropriate tour operations 0 0 Track condition 0 0 Track Signs condition 1 1 Track hazards 0 0 Litter 0 0 Visitor behaviour/tracks Vandalism 0 0 Inappropriate visitorbehaviour 0 1
67 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
Feral dog 0 0 Feral pig 0 0 Animals/tracks Feral cat 0 0 Feral (other) 0 0 Track/Evidence Pigs 1 1 Canopy death 0 0 Vegetation Bracket fungi 0 1 Film 0 0 Smell 0 0 Water Litter 0 1 Clarity 0 0 Flow 3 3
68 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 2: Case Studies
APPENDIX B – LAND MANAGER PROFORMAS
B1 RESULTS OF DRY AND WET SEASON TRIALS OF THE LAND MANAGERS PROFORMAS AT MARRDJA BOARDWALK
LAND MANAGER PROFORMA SITE MARRDJA BOARDWALK DATE 6-Dec-01 19-Apr-02 WEATHER Sunny (and overcast) Sunny TIME START 1350 1450 TIME STOP 1435 1530 SAMPLING TIME 45 mins 40 mins THEME Walk Walk SEASON dry wet ACTION SCALE: RAW SCORE: 1 = no action required; 2 = watch; 3 = needs 1 = very low impact; to 5 = very high impact attention; 4 = immediate action needed; 5 = being addressed SECTION: HUMAN RELATED ACTIVITY Raw Score Action Scale Raw Score Action Scale Undesignated track (s) 1 1 1 1 Track widening (people stepping off track) 2 3 2 3 Mineral soil exposure (due to stepping off track) 1 1 2 1 Exposed roots (people stepping off track and trampling) 1 1 1 1 Litter 1 1 1 1 Sharp foreign objects 1 1 1 1 Fire scars on trees 1 1 1 1
69 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
Fires scars from undesignated camp - - - - New fire scars - edge 1 1 1 1 Wood pile(s) undesignated clumps - - - - Infrastructure damage, e.g. recent vandalism 1 1 1 1 Vegetation damage 1 1 1 1 SECTION: FACTORS RELATED TO HUMAN DISTURBANCE OF WILDLIFE Raw Score Action Scale Raw Score Action Scale Feeding wildlife 1 1 1 1 Birds/animals scavenging 1 1 1 1 Disturbing wildlife 1 1 2 2 Domestic animals 1 1 1 1 SECTION: IMPACTS ON TRACK, AND 2.5 METRES ADJACENT TO TRACK (Management Issues) Raw Score Action Scale Raw Score Action Scale Overhanging hazardous plants on track 1 1 1 1 Hazardous plants (adjacent to track) 2 1 2 1 Potholes/bogs on track 1 1 1 1 Potholes/bogs adjacent to track 2 2 2 2 Mineral soil exposure on track 1 1 1 1 Mineral soil exposure adjacent to track 3 2 3 2 Debris blocking culvert/drains 1 1 1 1 Loose stones on track 1 1 1 1 Track, e.g. rotten tread, railings, seats 3 3 2 3 Gully erosion on track 1 1 1 1 Storm damage on or adjacent to track 1 1 1 1 Road impact, e.g. noise, dust 2 1 2 1 Feral animals 3 4 5 4
70 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 2: Case Studies
SECTION: VEGETATION – 2.5 METRES EITHER SIDE OF TRACK Raw Score Action Scale Raw Score Action Scale Ferns/orchids below four metres 1 1 1 1 Weeds adjacent to track 3 3 2 3 Condition of surrounding plants eg patch death 1 1 1 1 Native seedlings on edge 2 1 1 1 Bracket fungi on live trees 1 1 1 1 SECTION: OTHER WIDLIFE This section tells if animals were present. It is not a good indicator of visitor impact as animal sightings and activity is related to time of day, need to feed, etc. Native birds Obvious/not common Common Reptiles Not seen Not seen Mammals Not seen Very common* Comment on unusual activity None observed None observed
71 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
B2 RESULTS OF DRY AND WET SEASON TRIALS OF THE LAND MANAGERS PROFORMA AT DAVIES CREEK
LAND MANAGER PROFORMA SITE DAVIES CREEK DATE 10-Dec-01 18-Apr-02 10-Dec-01 18-Apr-02 10-Dec-01 18-Apr-02 Sunny Sunny Sunny WEATHER Sunny Sunny (and overcast) (and overcast) (and overcast) TIMESTAR 1145 1330 1345 1200 1125 TIMESTOP 1200 1400 1520 1215 1150 SAMPLING TIME 15 mins 30 mins 135 mins 15 mins 25 mins THEME Camp and Picnic Walk Freshwater Feature SEASON dry wet dry wet dry wet ACTION SCALE: RAW SCORE: 1 = no action required; 2 = watch; 3 = needs attention; 4 = 1 = very low impact; to 5 = very high impact immediate action needed; 5 = being addressed SECTION: HUMAN RELATED ACTIVITY Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Undesignated track (s) 3 2 2 2 3 3 5 5 3 1 3 2 Track widening 2 2 2 2 Litter 3 3 4 4 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 Sharp foreign objects 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 5 3 3 4 Fire scars on trees 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Fires Scars from undesignated camp 5 3 5 3 2 1 2 1 5 3 2 2 New fire scars - trees on edge 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 3 2 2 Wood pile(s) undesignated clumps 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
72 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 2: Case Studies
Infrastructure damage, e.g. recent 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 - - - - vandalism Vegetation damage 5 3 3 3 1 1 2 2 4 3 3 3 SECTION: FACTORS RELATED TO HUMAN DISTURBANCE OF WILDLIFE Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Feeding wildlife 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Birds/animals scavenging 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Disturbing wildlife 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Domestic animals 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SECTION: MANAGEMENT ISSUES (Walking track refers to impacts on the track) Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Hazardous plants (overhanging track) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Weeds (water proforma refers to 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 2 5 2 weeds on bank) Exposed roots 5 2 2 3 2 5 3 - - - - Potholes/bogs 2 1 5 3.5 2 1 1 1 - - - - Mineral soil exposure 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 - - - - Gully erosion 3 2 4 2 5 3 5 3 - - - - Storm damage 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 Road damage/carpark 4 3 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Feral animals 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 SECTION: CONDITION OF VEGETATION Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Condition of surrounding plants, e.g. 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 - - 2 2 patch death
73 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
Native seedlings on edge 3 1 1 1 common 1 common 1 - - 2 2 Bracket fungi on live trees 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SECTION: MANAGEMENT ISSUES RELATED TO WALKING TRACKS Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Debris blocking culvert/drains 1 1 1 1 Loose stones on track 2 1 1 1 Track structure 2 2 3 2 Road impacts near track 1 1 1 1 SECTION: WATER QUALITY Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Surface film 2 2 1 1 Water clarity/settling 1 1 1 1 Water odour 1 1 1 1 SECTION: WATER SYSTEM – BANK AND VEGETATION Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Bank erosion 1 1 1 1 Water weeds 1 1 1 1 Loose slippery stones 1 1 2 2 SECTION: OTHER WILDLIFE To make a meaningful assessment, twenty minute observations need to be conducted during the period of greatest bird, mammal and reptile activity. This was not conducted during these surveys due to time constraints. Native birds common sparse sparse sparse common None Not None Reptiles sparse sparse observed common observed
74 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 2: Case Studies
None None None None None Mammals observed observed observed observed observed Native water-fauna 3 1 1 1 Comment on unusual activity None observed None observed None observed None observed None observed None observed
75 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
B3 RESULTS OF DRY AND WET SEASON TRIALS OF THE LAND MANAGERS PROFORMA AT HENRIETTA CREEK
LAND MANAGER PROFORMA SITE HENRIETTA FALLS DATE 11-Dec-01 13-Apr-02 11-Dec-01 13-Apr-02 11-Dec-01 13-Apr-02 Sunny (and Sunny (and Sunny (and Sunny (and WEATHER Sunny Overcast overcast) overcast) overcast) overcast) TIME START 1210 1600 1330 1645 1540 1510 TIME STOP 1320 1400 1545 1720 SAMPLING TIME 70mins 30 mins 5 mins 130 mins THEME Camp and Picnic Camp and Picnic Walk Walk Water feature (creek, river, waterfall) SEASON dry wet dry wet dry wet ACTION SCALE: RAW SCORE: 1 = no action required; 2 = watch; 3 = needs attention; 4 = 1 = very low impact; to 5 = very high impact immediate action needed; 5 = being addressed SECTION: HUMAN RELATED ACTIVITY Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Undesignated track (s) 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 Track widening 1 1 1 1 Litter 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sharp foreign objects 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fire scars on trees 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fires scars from undesignated camp 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 New fire scars - edge 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Wood pile(s) undesignated clumps 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
76 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 2: Case Studies
Infrastructure damage, e.g.new 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 vandalism Vegetation damage 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SECTION: FACTORS RELATED TO HUMAN DISTURBANCE OF WILDLIFE Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Feeding wildlife 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Birds/animals scavenging 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Disturbing wildlife 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Domestic animals 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SECTION: MANAGEMENT ISSUES Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Hazardous plants (overhanging 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 track) Weeds. (water proforma refers to 4 4 5 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 5 3 weeds on bank) Exposed roots 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Potholes/bogs 2 2 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mineral soil exposure 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Gully/surface erosion 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 1 1 1 Storm damage 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 Road damage/carpark 2 2 3 3 Feral animals 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 Road impacts , e.g. noise and dust 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
77 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
SECTION: VEGETATION Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Condition of surrounding plants 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 Native seedlings on edge 3 3 1 1 2 1 Bracket fungi on live trees 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 SECTION: MANAGEMENT ISSUES SPECIFIC TO WALKING TRACKS Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Debris blocking culvert/drains 3 3 3 3 Loose stones on track 2 2 4 3 Track structure 2 2 4 3 SECTION: WATER QUALITY Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Surface film 1 1 1 1 Water clarity/settling 1 1 2 1 Water odour 1 1 1 1 SECTION: WATER SYSTEM – BANK AND VEGETATION Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Bank erosion 2 2 2 2 Water weeds 1 1 1 1 Loose slippery stones 1 1 3 2
78 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 2: Case Studies
B4 RESULTS OF DRY AND WET SEASON TRIALS OF THE LAND MANAGERS PROFORMA AT MURRAY FALLS
LAND MANAGER PROFORMA SITE MURRAY FALLS DATE 6-Dec-01 9-May-02 6-Dec-01 9-May-02 6-Dec-01 9-May-02 Sunny Sunny WEATHER Sunny Sunny Overcast Overcast (and overcast) (and overcast) TIME START 1235 1640 1350 1000 1340 1525 TIME STOP 1310 1435 1400 1545 SAMPLING TIME 35 mins 45 mins 20 mins 20 mins THEME Camp and Picnic Camp and Picnic Walk Walk Water feature (river) SEASON dry wet dry wet dry wet ACTION SCALE: RAW SCORE: 1 = no action required; 2 = watch; 3 = needs attention; 4 = 1 = very low impact; to 5 = very high impact immediate action needed; 5 = being addressed SECTION: HUMAN RELATED ACTIVITY Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Undesignated track (s) 2 2 3 5 2 5 3 5 2 2 3 2 Track widening 1 1 1 1 Litter 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 3 2 3 Sharp foreign objects 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fire scars on trees on edge 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 3 4 2 Fires scars from undesignated camp 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 3 Wood pile(s) undesignated clumps 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
79 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
Infrastructure damage, e.g. recent - - 2 1 1 1 2 1 - - - - vandalism Vegetation damage 2 1 5 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 2 SECTION: FACTORS RELATED TO HUMAN DISTURBANCE OF WILDLIFE Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Feeding wildlife 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Birds/animals scavenging 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 Disturbing wildlife 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Domestic animals 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SECTION: MANAGEMENT ISSUES Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Hazardous plants (overhanging track) 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Weeds (water proforma refers to 4 4 5 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 weeds on bank) Exposed roots 2 2 2 3 2 1 4 5 3 2 3 2 Potholes/bogs 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mineral soil exposure 2 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 - - - - Gully erosion/surface erosion 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 5 2 2 2 2 Storm damage 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 Road damage/carpark 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Feral animals 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SECTION: CONDITION OF VEGETATION Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Condition of surrounding plants, e.g. 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 patch death
80 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 2: Case Studies
Native seedlings on edge common 1 common 1 common 1 common 1 common 1 common 1 Bracket fungi on live trees 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 SECTION: MANAGEMENT ISSUES SPECIFIC TO WALKING TRACKS Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Debris blocking culvert/drains 2 1 1 4 Loose stones on track 4 3 1 4 Track structure 2 1 1 1 Road impacts near track 1 1 1 1 SECTION: WATER QUALITY Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Surface film 1 1 1 1 Water clarity/settling 1 1 1 1 Water odour 1 1 2 1 SECTION: WATER SYSTEM – BANK AND VEGETATION Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Bank erosion 2 2 1 Water weeds 1 1 1 1 Loose slippery rocks 1 1 2 1 SECTION: OTHER WILDLIFE To make a meaningful assessment, twenty minute observations need to be conducted during the period of greatest bird, mammal and reptile activity. This was not conducted during these surveys due to time constraints. Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Raw Action Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Native birds 1 2 4 4 - -
81 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
Reptiles 1 1 2 2 - - Mammals 1 1 1 1 1 1 Native water-fauna 2 2
82 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 2: Case Studies
APPENDIX C – BIOPHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS
C1 MEASUREMENTS AT MARRDJA BOARDWALK
A. Dry season: Mean (±SE) and range for biophysical variables measured along the walking track.
Tread Buffer Control INDICATOR Standard No. of Standard No. of Standard No. of Mean Error of Range Quad. Mean Error of Range Quad. Mean Error of Range Quad. Mean Present Mean Present Mean Present % Bare ground - - - - 30.70 6.95 0-98.00 18 21.10 6.38 0-85.00 15 % Ground vegetation - - - - 11.65 4.84 0-90.00 11 12.90 5.46 0-99.00 12 cover % Litter cover 0.60 0.32 0-5 5 48.08 6.87 0-98.00 19 44.63 5.75 1-80 20 % Root cover 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.90 0.35 0-5.00 9 7.30 2.44 0-35.00 16 % Rock cover 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.10 0.07 0-1.00 1 1.10 1.00 0-20.00 3 % Ground fungi cover 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.03 0.03 0-0.50 1 0.53 0.26 0-5.00 5 % Wood debris cover 0.00 0.00 0 0 6.10 3.92 0-75.00 13 11.53 4.92 0-95.00 16 Erosion scale 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.60 0.23 0-3.00 6 0.35 0.17 2.00 4 % Erosion 0.00 0.00 0 0 7.50 2.84 0-40.00 6 6.00 2.94 40.00 4 Compaction 4.50 0.00 0 0 0.41 0.11 0-1.80 13 0.46 0.09 1.50 15 Litter depth (cm) 0.00 0.00 0 0 30.30 4.82 0-61.00 20 36.80 4.13 2-70.00 20 % Canopy cover 78.85 4.15 40-99 100 81.80 3.52 44-99.00 20 83.00 5.67 98.00 19 Seedling density 0.00 0.00 0 0 13.10 5.54 0-104.00 13 12.05 3.94 63.00 17 Slope 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.20 0.14 2.00 2 Weed/grass ------Epiphyte ------
83 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
B. Wet season: Mean (±SE) and range for biophysical variables measured along the walking track.
Tread Buffer Control INDICATOR Standard No. of Standard No. of Standard No. of Mean Error of Range Quad. Mean Error of Range Quad. Mean Error of Range Quad. Mean Present Mean Present Mean Present % Bare ground - - - - 22.10 5.89 85.00 15 10.50 3.99 60.00 12 % Ground vegetation 0 0 0 0 12.20 6.17 99.00 5 9.50 3.93 65.00 9 cover % Litter cover 0.28 0.12 2.00 5 61.35 7.61 99.00 20 66.05 6.94 100.00 19 % Root cover 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.70 0.30 5.00 6 4.65 1.70 25.00 12 % Rock cover 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.08 0.05 1.00 2 0.60 0.31 5.00 4 % Ground fungi cover 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.05 0.05 1.00 1 % Wood debris cover 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 3.60 1.82 35.00 12 8.50 2.69 50.00 16 Erosion scale 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.55 0.28 4.00 4 0.20 0.20 4.00 1 % Erosion 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 8.60 4.65 60.00 4 2.00 2.00 40.00 1 Compaction - - - - 0.20 0.06 0.88 10 0.28 0.16 3.25 13 Litter depth (cm) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 31.19 2.33 41.25 20 26.19 2.50 47.50 19 % Canopy cover 76.75 6.42 99.00 19 82.40 5.66 75.00 20 84.35 4.36 59.00 20 Seedling density 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 10.30 4.09 77.00 14 13.75 3.09 48.00 20 Slope 0 0 0 0 1.60 0.87 15.00 7 0.80 0.35 5.00 6 Weed/grass 0 0 0 0 - - - 8 0.30 0.11 1.00 6 Epiphyte ------9 0.80 0.09 1.00 16
84 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 2: Case Studies
C2 MEASUREMENTS AT DAVIES CREEK CAMP AND PICNIC AREA
Percentage vegetation cover, canopy cover, bare soil, litter cover were measured in one- square-metre quadrats. Compaction was measured with a penetrometer. Litter depth (mm). Three measurements were taken in each zone and the mean is reported.
dry Impact 1.00 1.70 5.00 13.00 12.00 5.00 0.00 1.20 dry Buffer 1.00 10.00 20.00 12.00 78.00 8.00 0.00 3.10 dry Control 1.00 50.00 12.00 5.70 44.30 16.00 0.70 0.00 dry Impact 2.00 0.00 18.00 43.00 11.00 0.70 0.00 3.40 dry Buffer 2.00 3.00 12.00 11.00 67.00 10.00 0.00 0.30 dry Control 2.00 50.00 12.00 5.70 44.30 16.00 0.70 0.00 dry Impact 3.00 13.00 0.00 0.00 21.70 0.70 0.00 0.60 dry Buffer 3.00 6.70 1.70 5.00 28.00 12.00 0.00 0.70 dry Control 3.00 48.00 1.70 2.70 49.70 1.20 0.00 0.40 dry Impact 4.00 0.00 31.70 83.00 16.70 0.17 0.00 0.42 dry Buffer 4.00 26.70 38.30 10.00 60.00 1.70 0.00 0.27 dry Control 4.00 48.00 1.70 2.70 49.70 1.20 0.00 0.40 wet Impact 1.00 17.00 8.33 83.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.71 wet Buffer 1.00 16.00 25.00 47.33 36.67 14.33 0.33 1.11 wet Control 1.00 37.00 13.33 46.00 13.67 18.33 1.00 1.23 wet Impact 2.00 0.00 6.67 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.08 wet Buffer 2.00 51.00 40.00 35.00 14.00 4.58 0.00 2.81 wet Control 2.00 33.33 25.00 10.00 56.67 60.83 0.33 0.38 wet Impact 3.00 19.00 23.33 71.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.06 wet Buffer 3.00 11.67 6.00 31.67 56.67 8.35 0.00 2.56 wet Control 3.00 61.67 0.00 5.67 32.67 49.60 1.00 0.44 wet Impact 4.00 1.00 16.67 99.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.90 wet Buffer 4.00 20.67 2.33 42.67 36.67 11.10 0.00 1.11 wet Control 4.00 60.00 8.33 5.00 33.33 25.83 0.00 0.00 wet Impact 5.00 0.00 15.00 50.00 16.67 4.17 0.00 4.42 wet Buffer 5.00 17.33 21.67 10.00 76.00 20.87 0.00 6.02 wet Control 5.00 48.00 11.67 16.67 34.08 38.65 0.58 0.51
85 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
C3 MEASUREMENTS AT DAVIES CREEK WALKING TRACK
A. Dry season: Mean, SE, range and number of quadrats indicators were recorded along the track, buffer and control sections of the Davies Creek Walking Track.
Tread Buffer Control Standard No. of Standard Standard No. of INDICATOR No. of Quad. Mean Error of Range Quad. Mean Error of Range Mean Error of Range Quad. Present Mean Present Mean Mean Present %Bare ground 13.3 4.20 1-70 19 6.43 3.14 0.5-50 11 0.5625 0.34 0.25-5 4 %Ground vegetation 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 cover %Litter cover 27.75 6.03 2-80 19 54.08 6.01 5-94 20 50.9 5.45 15-90 19 %Root cover 0.575 0.26 0.5-5 8 0.65 0.35 1-5 4 0.7 0.51 2-10 3 %Rock cover 8.625 4.37 0.5-80 9 10.75 4.60 1-85 11 14 5.96 5-100 8 %Ground fungi cover 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 %Wood debris cover 0.3 0.12 0.5-2 6 2.70 1.32 0.5-25 11 4.625 1.38 0.5-25 15 Erosion Scale %Erosion 4.5 2.61 5-50 6 6.00 2.28 5-30 9 0.5 0.34 5 2 Compaction 3.969 0.16 2.75-4.5 20 1.23 0.25 0.25-4.5 18 0.7075 0.24 0.25-4.5 13 Litter depth (cm) 6.4125 1.84 0.25-30 20 25.05 2.04 10-40 20 26.5 3.23 5-60 19 %Canopy cover 38.95 6.67 2-90 19 39.25 7.53 5-90 16 33.9 7.26 10-100 17 Seedling density 0 0.00 0 0 1.30 0.44 1-7 9 0.75 0.24 1-3 6 Slope 1.1 1-5 6 7.40 2.62 2-35 15 6.2 1.43 2-25 16 weed/grass 7.4 2 23.26 5.45 1-75 18 25.15 5.05 10-75 15 Epiphytes 0 4 0
86 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 2: Case Studies
B. Wet season: Mean, SE, range and number of quadrats indicators recorded in track, buffer and control sections of the Davies Creek Walking Track.
Tread Buffer Control Standard No. of Standard Standard No. of INDICATOR No. of Quad. Mean Error of Range Quad. Mean Error of Range Mean Error of Range Quad. Present Mean Present Mean Mean Present Indicator n=20 n=20 n=20 %Bare ground 20.2 4.43 4-65 19 6.7 2.3 2-40 13 2.9 0.1 1-15 8 % Ground vegetation 0 11.9 6 2-85 8 2.8 1.38 20-25 6 cover %Litter cover 18.95 4.45 1-70 17 63.8 5.62 5-95 20 76.2 6.34 20-100 20 %Root cover 0.8 0.41 1-5 4 0.55 0.5 1-10 2 0 0 0 0 %Rock cover 1 1 20 1 13.95 3.1 2-45 14 16.55 6.2 2-100 12 %Ground fungi cover 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 %Wood debris cover 0.1 0.1 2 1 2.7 1.21 1-20 9 1.8 0.5 1-5 11 Erosion Scale %Erosion 6.5 2.18 5-30 6 3.5 1.63 5-20 5 0.75 0.55 5-10 2 Compaction 3.07 0.24 1.44-4.5 20 0.897 0.1 0.05-1.88 20 0.935 0.28 0-4.5 17 Litter depth (cm) 5.31 0.98 1.25-15 16 40.0625 4.81 8.75-85 20 55.125 6.45 20-100 20 %Canopy cover 11.5 3.28 1-50 16 11.5 3.5 5-60 16 18.35 4.47 2-70 18 Seedling density 0.15 0.11 1-2 2 0.85 0.3 1-4 7 1.2 0.38 1-5 10 Slope 0.8 0.35 1-5 8.1 2.55 2-45 15 10.15 2.18 1-35 17 weed/grass 15 9 10 Epiphytes 0 11 9
87 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
C4 MEASUREMENTS AT HENRIETTA CREEK CAMP AND PICNIC NODES
Percentage vegetation cover, canopy cover, bare soil, litter cover were measured in one- square-metre quadrats. Compaction was measured with a penetrometer. Litter depth (mm). Three measurements were taken in each zone and the mean is reported.
Henrietta dry Impact 1.00 0.00 69.30 16.70 83.30 13.30 1.70 0.00 Henrietta dry Buffer 1.00 15.00 55.00 1.50 83.50 16.00 5.00 0.17 Henrietta dry Control 1.00 28.30 94.30 0.70 71.00 17.30 2.30 0.30 Henrietta dry Impact 2.00 0.00 61.70 23.70 49.30 5.70 0.00 3.90 Henrietta dry Buffer 2.00 31.70 78.30 1.00 67.30 21.70 8.30 0.90 Henrietta dry Control 2.00 11.00 71.70 5.00 83.30 20.00 4.70 0.30 Henrietta dry Impact 3.00 59.00 0.00 41.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.30 Henrietta dry Buffer 3.00 45.00 81.70 1.70 53.30 19.00 1.70 0.50 Henrietta dry Control 3.00 1.70 97.00 5.00 93.00 19.00 1.30 .00 Henrietta dry Impact 4.00 81.70 28.30 1.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 Henrietta dry Buffer 4.00 45.00 81.70 1.70 53.30 19.00 1.70 0.50 Henrietta dry Control 4.00 1.70 97.00 5.00 93.00 19.00 1.30 0.00 Henrietta dry Impact 5.00 0.30 93.00 14.30 85.30 15.00 0.00 0.85 Henrietta dry Buffer 5.00 17.00 92.30 0.70 82.70 43.30 4.30 0.20 Henrietta dry Control 5.00 28.30 94.30 0.70 71.00 17.30 2.30 0.30 Henrietta wet Impact 1.00 0.00 55.00 3.33 96.67 11.67 0.00 0.79 Henrietta wet Buffer 1.00 43.33 68.33 0.00 56.67 40.00 8.33 0.02 Henrietta wet Control 1.00 6.67 95.33 10.00 83.33 30.00 1.00 0.13 Henrietta wet Impact 2.00 0.17 43.33 88.33 11.67 3.92 0.00 3.60 Henrietta wet Buffer 2.00 60.00 98.33 6.67 33.33 28.25 2.00 0.21 Henrietta wet Control 2.00 1.67 96.00 4.67 93.67 27.08 0.33 0.15 Henrietta wet Impact 3.00 97.00 78.33 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.23 Henrietta wet Buffer 3.00 55.00 88.00 0.00 45.00 19.58 2.33 0.17 Henrietta wet Control 3.00 13.33 92.67 7.00 79.67 45.83 13.67 0.00 Henrietta wet Impact 4.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77 Henrietta wet Buffer 4.00 66.67 65.00 0.00 51.67 21.58 0.00 0.00 Henrietta wet Control 4.00 2.00 75.00 20.00 78.00 6.67 2.33 0.00 Henrietta wet Impact 5.00 0.00 95.67 0.00 100.00 14.17 .33 0.52 Henrietta wet Buffer 5.00 20.67 88.00 0.00 79.33 25.42 3.00 0.13 Henrietta wet Control 5.00 5.67 98.00 1.67 93.33 35.83 6.67 0.06
88 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 2: Case Studies
C5 MEASUREMENTS ALONG NANDROYA WALKING TRACK
A. Dry season: Mean (±SE), and range for biophysical variables measured during the dry season in five camp and picnic areas.
Tread Buffer Control
Standard Standard Standard INDICATOR No. of Quad. No. of Quad. No. of Quad. Mean Error of Range Mean Error of Range Mean Error of Range Present Present Present Mean Mean Mean
% Bare ground 2.63 1.23 5-20 5 16.65 4.03 1-60 17 14.13 4.09 2-60 15 % Ground vegetation 0 cover % Litter cover 55.65 7.46 1-100 20 37.53 5.62 10-89 17 53.10 6.07 5-92 19 % Root cover 0 3.15 1.21 1-20 8 7.78 2.89 1-50 12 % Rock cover 27.20 6.84 5-84 14 12.38 5.38 0.5-100 9 10.00 4.66 2-90 9 % Ground fungi cover 0.05 0.05 0-1 1 0.05 0.05 0-1 1 0.05 0.05 0-1 1 % Wood debris cover 3.15 2.99 1-60 3 2.05 0.73 1-10 9 7.83 4.16 0.5-80 14 Erosion scale 1.50 0.41 2-5 9 0.40 0.18 1-3 5 % Erosion 13.50 3.93 10-50 9 3.50 1.71 5-30 5 Compaction 4.23 0.25 1-4.75 20 1.17 0.19 0.3-2.6 16 0.82 0.25 0.3-4.5 13 Litter depth (cm) 6.40 2.02 2-30 11 17.70 3.22 5-50 16 28.35 3.20 11-70 19 % Canopy cover 88.90 2.50 55-99 20 83.15 3.22 50-99 20 87.70 4.06 25-99 20 Seedling density 0.05 0.05 0-1 1 5.15 1.54 1-19 15 5.05 1.90 1-36 13 Slope 0.90 0.30 0-50 8 31.50 7.77 2-90 16 21.05 4.93 2-70 17 Weed/grass 0 27.75 5.54 2-98 18 8.18 2.38 0.5-40 18 Epiphyte 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
89 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
B. Wet season: Mean (±SE), and range for biophysical variables measured during the wet season in five camp and picnic areas.
Tread Buffer Control
Standard Standard Standard INDICATOR No. of Quad. No. of Quad. No. of Quad. Mean Error of Range Mean Error of Range Mean Error of Range Present Present Present Mean Mean Mean
% Bare ground 26.6 7.85 1-90 17 20.50 4.48 1-60 18 4.26 15.70 1-73 18 % Ground vegetation 0 0 12.55 4.31 2-60 11 2.38 7.40 2-30 10 cover % Litter cover 57.9 7.50 7-100 20 46.15 6.82 2-99 20 6.08 54.15 2-99 20 % Root cover 0 0 0 0 7.00 3.96 1-80 11 1.19 4.85 1-15 15 % Rock cover 12.7 4.82 1-65 12 11.60 5.67 1-98 11 6.52 13.68 1-92 18 % Ground fungi cover 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % Wood debris cover 1.3 0.50 1-10 11 2.65 0.76 1-15 15 1.18 5.35 1-15 17 Erosion scale 0.6 0.15 1-2 10 0.90 0.18 1-3 14 0.14 0.75 1-2 13 % Erosion 2.25 2.00 5-40 2 5.75 1.59 10-20 9 2.30 5.75 5-40 7 Compaction 2.16 0.28 0.20-4.50 19 0.46 0.11 0.05-1.75 16 0.06 0.24 0.05-0.90 13 Litter depth (cm) 19.03 1.85 4.5-37.5 20 41.19 3.55 15-80 20 6.10 58.11 25-137.5 20 % Canopy cover 77.55 4.85 20-100 20 76.95 5.89 15-99 20 3.83 83.90 40-98 20 Seedling density 0.2 0.20 1-4 1 5.25 1.39 1-20 16 2.24 5.70 1-44 15 Slope 0.85 0.32 1-5 7 25.35 7.94 1-85 18 5.70 23.75 2-70 15 Weed/grass 0.17 0.11 2 0.25 0.13 3 0.08 0.08 1 Epiphyte 0 0 0 0.20 0.09 4 0.11 0.60 12
90 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 2: Case Studies
C6 MEASUREMENTS AT MURRRAY FALLS CAMP AND PICNIC AREA
A. Dry season: Mean (±SE), and range for biophysical variables measured during the dry season in eight camp and picnic areas.
Tread Buffer Control
INDICATOR Standard Error Standard Error Standard Error Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range of Mean of Mean of Mean
% Bare ground 16.93 7.78 0 - 64 3.35 1.13 0-9 4.44 1.5545 0.7-11 % Ground vegetation cover 46.31 8.9343 1.8 -75.5 23.10 6.90 3.5-57.7 17.00 4.88 1.8-33.3 % Litter cover 33.76 5.43 39.70 78.53 7.65 42.3-99.3 76.99 4.28 66-93.3 Compaction 2.61 0.41 3.30 0.61 0.10 0.3-1.2 0.22 7.035E-02 0-0.5 Litter depth (mm) 9.39 1.69 11.70 30.51 1.79 20-36.7 45.8 4.37 28.3-56.7 % Canopy cover 34.79 8.03 76.70 55.82 7.66 5.3-71.7 71.88 3.82 46.7-83.3 Seedling density 0 0 0 1.60 0.6071 0-5 2.63 0.67 0.7-5.7
91 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
B. Wet season: Mean (±SE), and range for biophysical variables measured during the wet season in eight camp/picnic areas.
Tread Buffer Control
INDICATOR Standard Error Standard Error Standard Error Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range of Mean of Mean of Mean
% Bare ground 12.5 4.55 39.34 7.67 2.78 21.67 8.88 3.18 26.00 % Ground vegetation cover 70.79 5.51 43.33 27.58 6.16 46.66 23.33 10.18 79.33 % Litter cover 17.87 4.08 35.33 88.08 3.03 22.00 88.75 4.11 27.00 Compaction 2.27 0.51 4.39 0.51 9.3E-02 0.3125 9.6E-02 0.75 Litter depth (mm) 6.96 0.5 3.92 33.28 3.59 27.92 39.74 3.49 34.59 % Canopy cover 48.33 6.3 60 72.50 1.75 13.33 70.83 6.56 58.33 Seedling density 0 0 0 0.79 0.2881 2.33 4.13 1.49 10.67 HTGRASS 46.88 5.87 45 227.00 63.15 450.00 398.75 93.45 663.33 HTBROAD 27.71 3.64 26.66 335.42 66.65 506.66 23.33 17.49 143.33 HTWOODY 1.25 1.25 10 168.33 56.87 476.67 435.62 97.84 696.67
92 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 2: Case Studies
C7 MEASUREMENTS AT MURRAY FALLS WALKING TRACK
A. Dry season: Mean, SE, range and number of quadrats in which indicators were recorded in the track, buffer and control sections of the Murray Falls Walking Track.
Tread Buffer Control Standard No. of Standard Standard No. of INDICATOR No. of Quad. Mean Error of Range Quad. Mean Error of Range Mean Error of Range Quad. Present Mean Present Mean Mean Present % Bare ground 31.08 6.90 1-95 19 14.85 4.13 1-60 17 6.65 2.89 1-55 12 % Ground vegetation 1.53 1.33 1-20 3 18.60 4.65 1-50 14 32.60 8.78 4-100 14 cover % Litter cover 60.93 6.39 15-95 19 54.85 6.60 5-100 20 64.15 7.69 5-100 19 % Root cover 2.93 1.02 0.5-15 11 1.14 0.54 25-100 9 3.20 1.14 1-15 9 % Rock cover 4.86 2.58 0.25-50 11 23.00 5.54 5-80 12 9.20 3.39 2-50 9 % Ground fungi cover 0 0.10 0.10 1-2 1 0.10 0.10 1-2 1 % Wood debris cover 0.19 0.08 0.25-1 5 4.63 3.46 0.5-70 12 6.31 2.91 0.25-50 11 Erosion scale 0.25 0.10 0-1 5 0.45 0.18 1-3 6 0.10 0.07 0-1 2 % Erosion 1.80 1.10 1-20 4 6.10 3.02 1-50 6 1.30 1.02 1-20 3 Compaction 2.50 0.26 1-4.5 20 0.89 0.29 0.2-4.5 16 0.70 0.30 0.2-4.5 12 Litter depth (cm) 15.98 2.11 0.5-40 20 38.75 4.35 10-90 20 41.70 6.23 10-110 20 % Canopy cover 74.50 5.90 20-100 20 76.20 5.49 20-98 20 72.80 6.04 40-98 19 Seedling density 0.40 0.17 1-2 5 16.40 4.51 1-55 16 34.80 9.17 1-140 15 Slope 1.18 0.40 0.5-5 10 19.64 7.71 1-85 18 13.55 3.41 2-45 17 Weed/grass Epiphyte
93 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
B. Wet season: Mean, SE, range and number of quadrats in which indicators were recorded in the track, buffer and control sections of the Murray Falls Walking Track.
Tread Buffer Control Standard No. of Standard Standard No. of INDICATOR No. of Quad. Mean Error of Range Quad. Mean Error of Range Mean Error of Range Quad. Present Mean Present Mean Mean Present n=20 n=20 n=20 % Bare ground 12.6 3.75 1-50 11 12.65 4.57 2-70 14 7.50 7.50 5-60 9 % Ground vegetation 0 0 2.75 2.50 5-50 2 1.25 1.25 5-20 2 cover % Litter cover 29.15 5.86 5-83 18 64.45 7.73 10-100 19 72.25 72.25 25-100 19 % Root cover 0.15 0.11 1-2 2 0.35 0.26 2-5 2 1.75 1.75 5-20 3 % Rock cover 6.35 4.13 2-75 5 7.00 4.59 10-80 3 6.25 6.25 50-75 2 % Ground fungi cover 0 0 0 0 % Wood debris cover 0 0 4.05 2.63 1-50 5 4.75 4.75 1-50 9 Erosion scale 0 0 0 % Erosion 0 0 0 Compaction 3.96 0.14 2.44-4.50 20 0.90 0.22 0.13-4.50 20 0.84 0.84 0.06-4.50 18 0.50- Litter depth (cm) 8.21 1.74 18 41.19 3.55 15-80 20 68.61 68.61 15-330 20 26.25 % Canopy cover 72.25 4.14 25-95 20 72.25 4.85 25-95 20 72.65 72.65 10-98 20 Seedling density 0.15 0.11 1-2 2 10.25 3.13 1-51 13 5.50 5.50 1-15 16 Slope 0.85 0.22 1-2 9 6.30 2.12 1-35 14 12.60 12.60 2-30 15 Weed/grass 0 0.40 0.11 8 0.30 0.30 6 Epiphyte 0 0.25 0.10 5 0.40 0.40 8
94 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 2: Case Studies
APPENDIX D – SUMMARY TABLES OF STATISTICS
D1 MARRDJA BOARDWALK BUFFER AND CONTROL
Comparing buffer and control in the wet and dry season
D1(A): Results of Kruskal Wallis tests to examine differences in indicators between the buffer and control. Test Statisticsa,b
BAREGROU GDVEGECO LITTERCO ROOTPERC WOODDEBR EROPERCE COMPACTI LITDEPTH CANOPYCO Chi-Square 3.477 .577 .001 13.019 8.471 2.643 .491 .001 .138 df 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. .062 .448 .973 .000 .004 .104 .484 .969 .710 a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: LOCATION
D1(B): Results of Kruskal Wallis tests to examine differences in indicators between the buffer and control.
Test Statisticsa,b
BAREGROU GDVEGECO LITTERCO ROOTPERC WOODDEBR EROPERCE COMPACTI LITDEPTH CANOPYCO Chi-Square 4.562 2.150 2.140 1.249 .040 2.149 21.932 .378 1.832 df 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. .033 .143 .144 .264 .842 .143 .000 .539 .176 a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: SEASON
Ranks Ranks
SEASON N Mean Rank LOCATION N Mean Rank BAREGROU dry 40 57.99 BAREGROU Buffer 40 45.30 wet 60 45.51 Control forest 40 35.70 Total 100 Total 80 GDVEGECO dry 40 44.00 GDVEGECO Buffer 40 38.69 wet 40 37.00 Control forest 40 42.31 Total 80 Total 80 LITTERCO dry 60 55.90 LITTERCO Buffer 40 40.41 wet 60 65.10 Control forest 40 40.59 Total 120 Total 80 ROOTPERC dry 60 63.54 ROOTPERC Buffer 40 31.63 wet 60 57.46 Control forest 40 49.38 Total 120 Total 80 WOODDEBR dry 60 59.92 WOODDEBR Buffer 40 33.05 wet 60 61.08 Control forest 40 47.95 Total 120 Total 80 EROPERCE dry 60 63.25 EROPERCE Buffer 40 43.45 wet 60 57.75 Control forest 40 37.55 Total 120 Total 80 COMPACTI dry 60 61.41 COMPACTI Buffer 40 38.72 wet 40 34.14 Control forest 40 42.28 Total 100 Total 80 LITDEPTH dry 60 62.41 LITDEPTH Buffer 40 40.60 wet 60 58.59 Control forest 40 40.40 Total 120 Total 80 CANOPYCO dry 60 56.22 CANOPYCO Buffer 40 39.54 wet 60 64.78 Control forest 40 41.46 Total 120 Total 80
95 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
D2 DAVIES CREEK CAMP AND PICNIC AREAS
Statistical analyses of data collected at four camp and picnic nodes in the dry season, and five camp and picnic nodes in the wet season at Davies Creek.
D2(A) and D2(D) calculated on all data, i.e. includes tread, buffer and control. D2(E) to D2(G) calculated on buffer and control only.
D2(A): Results of Kruskal Wallis test to examine differences in indicators across the tread, buffer and control. Test Statisticsa,b
VEGECOVE CANOPYCO BARESOIL LITTERCO Chi-Square 17.534 2.236 9.893 15.639 df 2 2 2 2 Asymp. Sig. .000 .327 .007 .000 a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: ZONE
Test Statisticsa,b
LITTERMM SEEDLING COMPACTI Chi-Square 15.823 12.241 10.944 df 2 2 2 Asymp. Sig. .000 .002 .004 a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: ZONE
D2(B): Results of an ANOVA to test for variation in canopy cover across the tread, buffer and control.
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: CANOPYCO Type III Sum Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Corrected Model 421.138a 5 84.228 .616 .689 Intercept 5126.476 1 5126.476 37.516 .000 SEASON 27.935 1 27.935 .204 .656 ZONE 379.630 2 189.815 1.389 .271 SEASON * ZONE 26.064 2 13.032 .095 .909 Error 2869.600 21 136.648 Total 8566.790 27 Corrected Total 3290.738 26 a. R Squared = .128 (Adjusted R Squared = -.080)
96 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 2: Case Studies
D2(C): Results of an ANOVA to test for variation in percentage vegetation cover across the tread, buffer and control.
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: VEGECOVE Type III Sum Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Corrected Model 9027.196a 5 1805.439 15.208 .000 Intercept 15149.314 1 15149.314 127.608 .000 SEASON 154.861 1 154.861 1.304 .266 ZONE 8744.108 2 4372.054 36.827 .000 SEASON * ZONE 184.166 2 92.083 .776 .473 Error 2493.074 21 118.718 Total 27205.515 27 Corrected Total 11520.270 26 a. R Squared = .784 (Adjusted R Squared = .732)
VEGECOVE a,b Tukey HSD Subset ZONE N 1 2 Impact 9 5.7444 buffer 9 18.1189 control 9 48.4444 Sig. .063 1.000 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. Based on Type III Sum of Squares The error term is Mean Square(Error) = 118.718. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 9.000. b. Alpha = .05.
D2(D): Results of Kruskal Wallis test to examine differences in indicators between the dry and wet season.
Test Statisticsa,b
LITTERMM SEEDLING COMPACTI VEGECOVE CANOPYCO BARESOIL LITTERCO Chi-Square 1.054 .787 4.410 .612 .574 5.967 2.152 df 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. .305 .375 .036 .434 .449 .015 .142 a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: SEASON
97 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
D2(E): Results of Kruskal Wallis test to examine differences in indicators between the buffer and control. Test Statisticsa,b
LITTERMM SEEDLING COMPACTI VEGECOVE CANOPYCO BARESOIL LITTERCO Chi-Square 2.971 6.330 5.102 8.796 2.015 3.801 1.535 df 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. .085 .012 .024 .003 .156 .051 .215 a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: ZONE
D2(F): Results of Kruskal Wallis test to examine differences in indicators between the season using only buffer and control.
Test Statisticsa,b
LITTERMM SEEDLING COMPACTI VEGECOVE CANOPYCO BARESOIL LITTERCO Chi-Square 5.348 .831 3.178 .643 .390 4.773 2.568 df 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. .021 .362 .075 .423 .532 .029 .109 a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: SEASON
D2(G): Results of an ANOVA to test for variation in percentage mineral soil exposure across the buffer and control.
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: ARCBARE Type III Sum Noncent. Observed Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Parameter Powera Corrected Model .396b 3 .132 5.898 .008 17.695 .879 Intercept 2.527 1 2.527 112.988 .000 112.988 1.000 SEASON .259 1 .259 11.564 .004 11.564 .885 ZONE .114 1 .114 5.105 .040 5.105 .557 SEASON * ZONE 1.277E-02 1 1.277E-02 .571 .463 .571 .109 Error .313 14 2.237E-02 Total 3.453 18 Corrected Total .709 17 a. Computed using alpha = .05 b. R Squared = .558 (Adjusted R Squared = .464)
98 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 2: Case Studies
Correlations
CANOPYCO BARESOIL LITTERCO LITTERMM SEEDLING COMPACTI VEGECOVE Spearman's rho CANOPYCO Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .462* .045 -.047 .013 .189 -.125 Sig. (2-tailed) . .015 .824 .818 .950 .344 .533 N 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 BARESOIL Correlation Coefficient .462* 1.000 -.583** -.448* -.134 .616** -.544** Sig. (2-tailed) .015 . .001 .019 .506 .001 .003 N 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 LITTERCO Correlation Coefficient .045 -.583** 1.000 .516** .104 -.429* .298 Sig. (2-tailed) .824 .001 . .006 .604 .026 .132 N 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 LITTERMM Correlation Coefficient -.047 -.448* .516** 1.000 .665** -.394* .553** Sig. (2-tailed) .818 .019 .006 . .000 .042 .003 N 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 SEEDLING Correlation Coefficient .013 -.134 .104 .665** 1.000 -.375 .527** Sig. (2-tailed) .950 .506 .604 .000 . .054 .005 N 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 COMPACTI Correlation Coefficient .189 .616** -.429* -.394* -.375 1.000 -.552** Sig. (2-tailed) .344 .001 .026 .042 .054 . .003 N 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 VEGECOVE Correlation Coefficient -.125 -.544** .298 .553** .527** -.552** 1.000 Sig. (2-tailed) .533 .003 .132 .003 .005 .003 . N 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 *. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
D3 DAVIES CREEK WALKING TRACK
D3(A): Kruskal Wallis tests to examine differences in indicators across zones (tread, buffer and control).
Test Statisticsa,b
Height AREGROGUDVEGECLOITTERCROOOTPERRCOCKPERWCOODDEBERROSCALEEROPERCCEOMPACLTITDEPTCHANOPYCSOEEDENSSLOPEWEEDGRAESPIPHYTHETGRASSbroadleaHfTWOODY Chi-Squa 40.300 17.269 36.814 6.223 11.610 22.439 8.984 8.278 66.389 62.895 .846 17.770 31.225 9.860 2.349 25.460 12.461 8.483 df 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 Asymp. S .000 .000 .000 .045 .003 .000 .011 .016 .000 .000 .655 .000 .000 .007 .125 .000 .002 .014 a.K ruskal Wallis Test b.G rouping Variable: LOCATION
D3(B): Kruskal Wallis tests to examine differences in indicators between season (wet and dry) using all data. Table D3(H) provides Mean Rank values.
Test Statistia,csb
BAREGROGUDVEGECOLITTERCOROOTPERRCOCKPERWC OODDEBERROSCALEROPERCCEOMPACTLITDEPTCHANOPYCOSEEDENSISLOPEWEEDGRAESPIPHYTE Chi-Squar 3.518 5.520 2.509 4.024 .004 2.976 .663 .008 .365 4.843 17.995 .130 .158 40.397 14.561 df 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Asymp. S .061 .019 .113 .045 .948 .084 .416 .928 .546 .028 .000 .719 .691 .000 .000 a.Kruskal Wallis Test b.Grouping Variable: SEASON
D3(C): Kruskal Wallis tests to examine differences in indicators across zones (buffer and control only). Table D3(G) provides Mean Rank values.
Test Statistia,csb
Height BAREGROGUDVEGECLOITTERCROOOTPERRCOCKPERWCOODDEBERROSCALEEROPERCCEOMPACTLITDEPTCHANOPYCSOEEDENS SLOPEWEEDGRAESPIPHYTHETGRASSbroadleafHTWOODY Chi-Squa 6.822 .445 .947 1.053 .447 2.232 7.096 5.720 6.894 1.651 .922 .012 1.804 .006 2.349 1.659 3.903 .708 df 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Asymp. S .009 .505 .331 .305 .504 .135 .008 .017 .009 .199 .337 .915 .179 .939 .125 .198 .048 .400 a.K ruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: LOCATION
99 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
D3(D): Spearman Rank Correlations of all variables measured in the tread/buffer and control.
Correlations
Height AREGROTTERCOOTPEROCKPEROODDEBROSCALROPERCOMPACTTDEPTANOPYCEEDENSLOPEEEDGRAPIPHYTTGRASroadleaTWOODMNLITTaf tip dea SpearmanBAREGROCorrelation C 1.000 -.233* .143 -.207* -.381** .334** .366** .345** -.300** -.104 -.126 -.308** -.297** .169 -.305* -.079 -.054 -.273* -.152 Sig. (2-tailed) . .010 .120 .024 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .259 .172 .001 .002 .136 .018 .547 .680 .035 .245 N 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 104 79 60 60 60 60 60 LITTERCOCorrelation C -.233* 1.000 -.264** -.004 .270** -.225* -.230* -.538** .620** .156 .177 .116 .055 .248* .610** .086 .238 -.148 .465** Sig. (2-tailed) .010 . .004 .966 .003 .014 .011 .000 .000 .089 .053 .205 .581 .027 .000 .515 .067 .259 .000 N 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 104 79 60 60 60 60 60 ROOTPERCorrelation C .143 -.264** 1.000 -.029 -.116 .229* .230* .183* -.241** .061 .031 .020 .012 .026 -.243 -.084 .036 -.076 -.253 Sig. (2-tailed) .120 .004 . .756 .206 .012 .012 .045 .008 .511 .736 .826 .904 .818 .061 .524 .782 .562 .051 N 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 104 79 60 60 60 60 60 ROCKPERCorrelation C -.207* -.004 -.029 1.000 .060 -.168 -.147 -.053 .203* -.180* .002 .347** -.050 .091 .143 .218 -.024 .172 -.025 Sig. (2-tailed) .024 .966 .756 . .514 .067 .110 .565 .026 .050 .984 .000 .611 .424 .274 .095 .855 .189 .849 N 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 104 79 60 60 60 60 60 WOODDECorrelation C -.381** .270** -.116 .060 1.000 -.114 -.155 -.459** .365** .045 .163 .139 .268** -.171 .316* .249 .155 -.164 .261* Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .003 .206 .514 . .215 .092 .000 .000 .623 .075 .131 .006 .131 .014 .055 .238 .211 .044 N 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 104 79 60 60 60 60 60 EROSCALCorrelation C .334** -.225* .229* -.168 -.114 1.000 .959** .164 -.065 -.051 -.098 .116 -.083 -.224* -.396** -.192 -.056 -.131 -.037 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .014 .012 .067 .215 . .000 .073 .478 .582 .287 .207 .405 .048 .002 .142 .671 .318 .780 N 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 104 79 60 60 60 60 60 EROPERCCorrelation C .366** -.230* .230* -.147 -.155 .959** 1.000 .158 -.056 -.121 -.080 .136 -.161 -.182 -.401** -.180 -.023 -.131 -.024 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .011 .012 .110 .092 .000 . .085 .544 .188 .384 .140 .102 .109 .002 .168 .859 .319 .858 N 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 104 79 60 60 60 60 60 COMPACTCorrelation C .345** -.538** .183* -.053 -.459** .164 .158 1.000 -.657** -.031 -.316**-.271** -.311** .018 -.543** -.277* -.471** .214 -.258* Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .045 .565 .000 .073 .085 . .000 .738 .000 .003 .001 .874 .000 .032 .000 .100 .047 N 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 104 79 60 60 60 60 60 LITDEPTHCorrelation C -.300** .620** -.241** .203* .365** -.065 -.056 -.657**1.000 -.018 .323** .437** .127 .293** .552** .252 .357** -.148 .405** Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .008 .026 .000 .478 .544 .000 . .849 .000 .000 .198 .009 .000 .052 .005 .259 .001 N 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 104 79 60 60 60 60 60 CANOPYCCorrelation C -.104 .156 .061 -.180* .045 -.051 -.121 -.031 -.018 1.000 .084 -.080 .147 -.080 .269* .127 .186 -.216 -.015 Sig. (2-tailed) .259 .089 .511 .050 .623 .582 .188 .738 .849 . .363 .383 .138 .485 .038 .334 .154 .098 .908 N 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 104 79 60 60 60 60 60 SEEDENSCorrelation C -.126 .177 .031 .002 .163 -.098 -.080 -.316** .323** .084 1.000 .322** .034 .086 .237 .177 .980** -.153 .073 Sig. (2-tailed) .172 .053 .736 .984 .075 .287 .384 .000 .000 .363 . .000 .729 .452 .068 .175 .000 .244 .581 N 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 104 79 60 60 60 60 60 SLOPE Correlation C -.308** .116 .020 .347** .139 .116 .136 -.271** .437** -.080 .322**1.000 -.048 -.046 .146 -.048 .242 -.045 .133 Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .205 .826 .000 .131 .207 .140 .003 .000 .383 .000 . .627 .688 .266 .716 .062 .730 .312 N 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 104 79 60 60 60 60 60 WEEDGR Correlation C -.297** .055 .012 -.050 .268** -.083 -.161 -.311** .127 .147 .034 -.048 1.000 -.123 .204 .247 .112 -.031 .297* Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .581 .904 .611 .006 .405 .102 .001 .198 .138 .729 .627 . .285 .118 .057 .395 .813 .021 N 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 78 60 60 60 60 60 EPIPHYTECorrelation C .169 .248* .026 .091 -.171 -.224* -.182 .018 .293** -.080 .086 -.046 -.123 1.000 -.243 .314* .248 -.229 -.101 Sig. (2-tailed) .136 .027 .818 .424 .131 .048 .109 .874 .009 .485 .452 .688 .285 . .131 .049 .123 .154 .537 N 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 78 79 40 40 40 40 40 HTGRASSCorrelation C -.305* .610** -.243 .143 .316* -.396** -.401** -.543** .552** .269* .237 .146 .204 -.243 1.000 .363** .246 -.071 .216 Sig. (2-tailed) .018 .000 .061 .274 .014 .002 .002 .000 .000 .038 .068 .266 .118 .131 . .004 .058 .588 .098 N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 40 60 60 60 60 60 Height broCorrelation C -.079 .086 -.084 .218 .249 -.192 -.180 -.277* .252 .127 .177 -.048 .247 .314* .363**1.000 .193 -.136 -.073 Sig. (2-tailed) .547 .515 .524 .095 .055 .142 .168 .032 .052 .334 .175 .716 .057 .049 .004 . .141 .300 .579 N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 40 60 60 60 60 60 HTWOOD Correlation C -.054 .238 .036 -.024 .155 -.056 -.023 -.471** .357** .186 .980** .242 .112 .248 .246 .193 1.000 -.153 .096 Sig. (2-tailed) .680 .067 .782 .855 .238 .671 .859 .000 .005 .154 .000 .062 .395 .123 .058 .141 . .245 .467 N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 40 60 60 60 60 60 HMNLITTECorrelation C -.273* -.148 -.076 .172 -.164 -.131 -.131 .214 -.148 -.216 -.153 -.045 -.031 -.229 -.071 -.136 -.153 1.000 -.175 Sig. (2-tailed) .035 .259 .562 .189 .211 .318 .319 .100 .259 .098 .244 .730 .813 .154 .588 .300 .245 . .182 N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 40 60 60 60 60 60 leaf tip deaCorrelation C -.152 .465** -.253 -.025 .261* -.037 -.024 -.258* .405** -.015 .073 .133 .297* -.101 .216 -.073 .096 -.175 1.000 Sig. (2-tailed) .245 .000 .051 .849 .044 .780 .858 .047 .001 .908 .581 .312 .021 .537 .098 .579 .467 .182 . N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 40 60 60 60 60 60 *.Cor relation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). **.Cor relation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
100 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 2: Case Studies
D3(E): ANOVA to test for differences in compaction across zone (buffer and control) and season (dry and wet).
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: COMPACTI Type III Sum Noncent. Observed Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Parameter Powera Corrected Model 2.771b 3 .924 .862 .465 2.586 .230 Intercept 70.951 1 70.951 66.212 .000 66.212 1.000 SEASON 5.304E-02 1 5.304E-02 .050 .825 .050 .056 LOCATION 1.162 1 1.162 1.084 .301 1.084 .177 SEASON * LOCATION 1.557 1 1.557 1.453 .232 1.453 .222 Error 81.439 76 1.072 Total 155.162 80 Corrected Total 84.211 79 a. Computed using alpha = .05 b. R Squared = .033 (Adjusted R Squared = -.005)
D3(F): Wet season only - height of vegetation in buffer and control.
Ranks
LOCATION N Mean Rank HTGRASS Buffer 20 18.13 Control forest 20 22.88 Test Statisticsa,b Total 40 Height Height broadleaf Buffer 20 23.67 HTGRASS broadleaf HTWOODY Control forest 20 17.33 Chi-Square 1.659 3.903 .708 Total 40 df 1 1 1 HTWOODY Buffer 20 19.10 Asymp. Sig. .198 .048 .400 Control forest 20 21.90 a. Kruskal Wallis Test Total 40 b. Grouping Variable: LOCATION
101 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
D3(G): Mean Rank values of data collected in buffer and control data collected in wet and dry season (see D3(E) and D3(F) for Kruskal Wallis analyses).
Ranks
LOCATION N Mean Rank BAREGROU Buffer 40 46.67 Control forest 40 34.33 Total 80 GDVEGECO Buffer 20 21.55 Control forest 20 19.45 Total 40 LITTERCO Buffer 40 37.97 Control forest 40 43.03 Total 80 ROOTPERC Buffer 40 41.96 Control forest 40 39.04 Total 80 ROCKPERC Buffer 40 42.16 Control forest 40 38.84 Total 80 WOODDEBR Buffer 40 36.79 Control forest 40 44.21 Total 80 EROSCALE Buffer 40 45.55 Control forest 40 35.45 Total 80 EROPERCE Buffer 40 44.84 Control forest 40 36.16 Total 80 COMPACTI Buffer 40 47.31 Control forest 40 33.69 Total 80 LITDEPTH Buffer 40 37.17 Control forest 40 43.83 Total 80 CANOPYCO Buffer 40 38.03 Control forest 40 42.97 Total 80 SEEDENSI Buffer 40 40.25 Control forest 40 40.75 Total 80 SLOPE Buffer 40 37.06 Control forest 40 43.94 Total 80 WEEDGRAS Buffer 39 40.19 Control forest 40 39.81 Total 79 EPIPHYTE Buffer 39 43.19 Control forest 40 36.89 Total 79 HTGRASS Buffer 20 18.13 Control forest 20 22.88 Total 40 Height broadleaf Buffer 20 23.67 Control forest 20 17.33 Total 40 HTWOODY Buffer 20 19.10 Control forest 20 21.90 Total 40
102 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 2: Case Studies
D3(H): Mean Rank values of data collected in wet and dry season. Ranks
SEASON N Mean Rank BAREGROU dry 40 36.04 wet 40 44.96 Total 80 GDVEGECO wet 40 20.50 Total 40a LITTERCO dry 40 32.00 wet 40 49.00 Total 80 ROOTPERC dry 40 43.00 wet 40 38.00 Total 80 ROCKPERC dry 40 36.83 wet 40 44.17 Total 80 WOODDEBR dry 40 43.71 wet 40 37.29 Total 80 EROSCALE dry 40 43.03 wet 40 37.97 Total 80 EROPERCE dry 40 41.61 wet 40 39.39 Total 80 COMPACTI dry 40 39.92 wet 40 41.08 Total 80 LITDEPTH dry 40 30.29 wet 40 50.71 Total 80 CANOPYCO dry 40 48.59 wet 40 32.41 Total 80 SEEDENSI dry 40 40.45 wet 40 40.55 Total 80 SLOPE dry 40 37.95 wet 40 43.05 Total 80 WEEDGRAS dry 39 54.22 wet 40 26.14 Total 79 EPIPHYTE dry 39 32.05 wet 40 47.75 Total 79 HTGRASS wet 40 20.50 Total 40a Height broadleaf wet 40 20.50 Total 40a HTWOODY wet 40 20.50 Total 40a a. There is only one non-empty group. Kruskal-Wallis Test cannot be performed.
103 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
D4 HENRIETTA CREEK CAMP AND PICNIC AREAS
D4(A): Wet Season only including tread/buffer and control.
Correlations
HTGRASS HTBROAD HTWOODY Spearman's rho HTGRASS Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .725** -.004 Sig. (2-tailed) . .002 .989 N 15 15 15 HTBROAD Correlation Coefficient .725** 1.000 .226 Sig. (2-tailed) .002 . .417 N 15 15 15 HTWOODY Correlation Coefficient -.004 .226 1.000 Sig. (2-tailed) .989 .417 . N 15 15 15 **. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
D4(B): Litter depth – the only factor that meet the assumptions of ANOVA. ANOVA to test for differences in tread/buffer/control and season.
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: LITTERMM Type III Sum Noncent. Observed a Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Parameter Power Corrected Model 2530.411b 5 506.082 6.177 .001 30.886 .983 Intercept 10289.712 1 10289.712 125.595 .000 125.595 1.000 SEASON 138.245 1 138.245 1.687 .206 1.687 .239 ZONE 2224.665 2 1112.332 13.577 .000 27.154 .995 SEASON * ZONE 167.501 2 83.750 1.022 .375 2.044 .207 Error 1966.266 24 81.928 Total 14786.389 30 Corrected Total 4496.677 29 a. Computed using alpha = .05 b. R Squared = .563 (Adjusted R Squared = .472)
104 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 2: Case Studies
D4(C): Wallis tests to examine differences between season using data from tread/buffer and control
Ranks Season N Mean Rank dry 15 15.13 VEGECOVE wet 15 15.87 Total 30 dry 15 14.80 CANOPYCO wet 15 16.20 Total 30 dry 15 17.00 BARESOIL wet 15 14.00 Total 30 dry 15 15.60 LITTERCO wet 15 15.40 Total 30 dry 15 15.80 SEEDLING wet 15 15.20 Total 30 dry 15 17.33 COMPACTI wet 15 13.67 Total 30
Test Statisticsa,b
VEGECOVECANOPYCO BARESOIL LITTERCO SEEDLING COMPACTI Chi-Square .052 .190 .880 .004 .036 1.313 df 1 1 1 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. .819 .663 .348 .950 .850 .252 a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: SEASON
105 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
D4(D): Spearman Rank correlations of indicators measured in one-square-metre quadrats.
Correlations
VEGECOVECANOPYCOBARESOILLITTERCOLITTERMMSEEDLINGCOMPACTI Spearman's rh VEGECOVECorrelation Coefficie 1.000 -.219 -.446* -.734** .014 .044 .135 Sig. (2-tailed) . .244 .014 .000 .941 .818 .478 N 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 CANOPYCOCorrelation Coefficie -.219 1.000 -.061 .522** .575** .306 -.433* Sig. (2-tailed) .244 . .749 .003 .001 .100 .017 N 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 BARESOIL Correlation Coefficie -.446* -.061 1.000 .016 -.271 -.291 .126 Sig. (2-tailed) .014 .749 . .932 .148 .118 .506 N 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 LITTERCO Correlation Coefficie -.734** .522** .016 1.000 .356 .248 -.450* Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .003 .932 . .053 .186 .013 N 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 LITTERMM Correlation Coefficie .014 .575** -.271 .356 1.000 .685** -.589** Sig. (2-tailed) .941 .001 .148 .053 . .000 .001 N 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 SEEDLING Correlation Coefficie .044 .306 -.291 .248 .685** 1.000 -.506** Sig. (2-tailed) .818 .100 .118 .186 .000 . .004 N 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 COMPACTI Correlation Coefficie .135 -.433* .126 -.450* -.589** -.506** 1.000 Sig. (2-tailed) .478 .017 .506 .013 .001 .004 . N 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 *. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
D4(E): Kruskal Wallis tests to examine differences in indicators between season using data from tread/buffer and control.
Ranks
ZONE N Mean Rank VEGECOVE Impact 10 13.30 buffer 10 21.10 control 10 12.10 Total 30 CANOPYCO Impact 10 9.25 buffer 10 15.05 control 10 22.20 Total 30 BARESOIL Impact 10 19.20 buffer 10 9.30 control 10 18.00 Total 30 LITTERCO Impact 10 12.65 buffer 10 12.70 control 10 21.15 Total 30 SEEDLING Impact 10 6.65 buffer 10 20.65 control 10 19.20 Total 30 COMPACTI Impact 10 23.35 buffer 10 13.80 control 10 9.35 Total 30
106 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 2: Case Studies
Test Statisticsa,b
VEGECOVECANOPYCOBARESOIL LITTERCO SEEDLING COMPACTI Chi-Square 6.180 10.873 7.613 6.198 15.743 13.329 df 2 2 2 2 2 2 Asymp. Sig .045 .004 .022 .045 .000 .001 a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: ZONE
D4(F): Kruskal Wallis tests to examine differences in indicators between buffer and control at five camp and picnic areas.
Test Statistica,sb
VEGECOVECANOPYCOBARESOILLITTERCOSEEDLINGCOMPACTI Chi-Square 11.088 4.494 5.936 7.841 .414 2.218 df 1 1 1 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig .001 .034 .015 .005 .520 .136 a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: ZONE
Ranks
ZONE N Mean Rank VEGECOVE buffer 10 14.90 control 10 6.10 Total 20 CANOPYCO buffer 10 7.70 control 10 13.30 Total 20 BARESOIL buffer 10 7.30 control 10 13.70 Total 20 LITTERCO buffer 10 6.80 control 10 14.20 Total 20 SEEDLING buffer 10 11.35 control 10 9.65 Total 20 COMPACTI buffer 10 12.45 control 10 8.55 Total 20
107 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
D4(G): Kruskal Wallis tests to examine differences in indicators between season (wet and dry) using data collected in buffer and control only.
Test Statisticsa,b
VEGECOVE CANOPYCO BARESOIL LITTERCO SEEDLING COMPACTI Chi-Square .023 .206 .023 .206 .006 5.426 df 1 1 1 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. .880 .650 .879 .650 .940 .020 a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: SEASON
D5 NANDROYA WALKING TRACK
D5(A): ANOVA to test for differences in compaction across zone (tread, buffer and control) and between season (dry and wet).
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: COMPACTI Type III Sum Noncent. Observed a Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Parameter Power Corrected Model 219.428b 5 43.886 51.424 .000 257.120 1.000 Intercept 269.496 1 269.496 315.789 .000 315.789 1.000 SEASON 36.870 1 36.870 43.204 .000 43.204 1.000 LOCATION 169.415 2 84.708 99.258 .000 198.517 1.000 SEASON * LOCATION 13.623 2 6.812 7.982 .001 15.963 .951 Error 95.581 112 .853 Total 591.725 118 Corrected Total 315.009 117 a. Computed using alpha = .05 b. R Squared = .697 (Adjusted R Squared = .683)
D5(B): Kruskal Wallis tests to examine differences in indicators across zones (tread, buffer and control) with associated table of mean rank values.
Test Statisticsa,b
BAREGROU GDVEGECO LITTERCO ROOTPERC ROCKPERC WOODDEBR EROPERCE Chi-Square 8.922 .223 5.389 37.401 3.420 17.389 17.032 df 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 Asymp. Sig. .012 .637 .068 .000 .181 .000 .000 a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: LOCATION
108 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 2: Case Studies
Ranks
LOCATION N Mean Rank BAREGROU Tread 39 47.27 Buffer 40 69.79 Control forest 40 62.63 Total 119 GDVEGECO Buffer 20 21.33 Control forest 20 19.67 Total 40 LITTERCO Tread 40 67.35 Buffer 40 50.28 Control forest 40 63.88 Total 120 ROOTPERC Tread 40 37.50 Buffer 40 66.05 Control forest 40 77.95 Total 120 ROCKPERC Tread 40 67.76 Buffer 40 56.71 Control forest 39 55.41 Total 119 WOODDEBR Tread 40 44.24 Buffer 40 62.14 Control forest 40 75.13 Total 120 EROPERCE Tread 40 47.46 Buffer 40 72.34 Control forest 40 61.70 Total 120
Ranks
LOCATION N Mean Rank EROSCALE Tread 40 48.80 Buffer 40 72.47 Control forest 40 60.22 Total 120 COMPACTI Tread 40 91.49 Buffer 39 49.19 Control forest 39 37.00 Total 118 LITDEPTH Tread 40 33.72 Buffer 40 65.20 Control forest 40 82.57 Total 120 CANOPYCO Tread 40 59.76 Buffer 40 55.50 Control forest 40 66.24 Total 120 SEEDENSI Tread 40 32.41 Buffer 40 76.59 Control forest 40 72.50 Total 120
109 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
Test Statisticsa,b
EROSCALE COMPACTI LITDEPTH CANOPYCO SEEDENSI Chi-Square 11.752 55.874 40.750 1.957 44.854 df 2 2 2 2 2 Asymp. Sig. .003 .000 .000 .376 .000 a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: LOCATION
D5(C): Kruskal Wallis tests to examine differences in indicators across seasons, with associated table of mean rank values (* based on Tread/Buffer/Control data).
Ranks
SEASON N Mean Rank EROSCALE dry 60 51.98 wet 60 69.02 Total 120 COMPACTI dry 60 69.42 wet 58 49.24 Total 118 LITDEPTH dry 60 43.43 wet 60 77.57 Total 120 CANOPYCO dry 60 64.75 wet 60 56.25 Total 120 SEEDENSI dry 60 59.10 wet 60 61.90 Total 120
Test Statisticsa,b
EROSCALE COMPACTI LITDEPTH CANOPYCO SEEDENSI Chi-Square 9.121 10.348 29.037 1.814 .221 df 1 1 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. .003 .001 .000 .178 .638 a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: SEASON
110 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 2: Case Studies
Ranks
SEASON N Mean Rank BAREGROU dry 59 52.21 wet 60 67.66 Total 119 GDVEGECO wet 40 20.50 Total 40a LITTERCO dry 60 58.28 wet 60 62.72 Total 120 ROOTPERC dry 60 58.19 wet 60 62.81 Total 120 ROCKPERC dry 60 61.99 wet 59 57.97 Total 119 WOODDEBR dry 60 52.27 wet 60 68.73 Total 120 EROPERCE dry 60 59.33 wet 60 61.67 Total 120 a. There is only one non-empty group. Kruskal-Wallis Test cannot be performed.
Test Statisticsa,b
BAREGROU LITTERCO ROOTPERC ROCKPERC WOODDEBR EROPERCE Chi-Square 6.073 .488 .692 .448 7.351 .226 df 1 1 1 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. .014 .485 .406 .503 .007 .634 a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: SEASON
111 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
D5(D): Kruskal Wallis tests to examine differences in indicators across seasons with associated table of mean rank values (* based on Buffer/Control data only).
Ranks
SEASON N Mean Rank BAREGROU dry 40 38.56 wet 40 42.44 Total 80 GDVEGECO wet 40 20.50 Total 40a LITTERCO dry 40 38.46 wet 40 42.54 Total 80 ROOTPERC dry 40 38.54 wet 40 42.46 Total 80 ROCKPERC dry 40 39.56 wet 39 40.45 Total 79 WOODDEBR dry 40 35.51 wet 40 45.49 Total 80 EROPERCE dry 40 40.70 wet 40 40.30 Total 80 a. There is only one non-empty group. Kruskal-Wallis Test cannot be performed.
Test Statisticsa,b
BAREGROU LITTERCO ROOTPERC ROCKPERC WOODDEBR EROPERCE Chi-Square .561 .616 .622 .034 3.843 .008 df 1 1 1 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. .454 .433 .430 .853 .050 .929 a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: SEASON
Ranks
SEASON N Mean Rank COMPACTI dry 40 46.49 wet 38 32.14 Total 78 LITDEPTH dry 40 26.35 wet 40 54.65 Total 80 CANOPYCO dry 40 42.17 wet 40 38.83 Total 80 SEEDENSI dry 40 39.40 wet 40 41.60 Total 80
112 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 2: Case Studies
Test Statisticsa,b
COMPACTI LITDEPTH CANOPYCO SEEDENSI Chi-Square 7.958 29.773 .421 .184 df 1 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. .005 .000 .516 .668 a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: SEASON
D5(E): Kruskal Wallis tests to examine differences in indicators across zones (buffer and control), with associated table of mean rank values (* based on Buffer/Control data only).
Ranks
LOCATION N Mean Rank COMPACTI Buffer 39 44.92 Control forest 39 34.08 Total 78 LITDEPTH Buffer 40 34.50 Control forest 40 46.50 Total 80 CANOPYCO Buffer 40 36.94 Control forest 40 44.06 Total 80 SEEDENSI Buffer 40 41.79 Control forest 40 39.21 Total 80
Test Statisticsa,b
COMPACTI LITDEPTH CANOPYCO SEEDENSI Chi-Square 4.554 5.353 1.904 .252 df 1 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. .033 .021 .168 .616 a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: LOCATION
113 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
Ranks
LOCATION N Mean Rank BAREGROU Buffer 40 43.24 Control forest 40 37.76 Total 80 GDVEGECO Buffer 20 21.33 Control forest 20 19.67 Total 40 LITTERCO Buffer 40 35.55 Control forest 40 45.45 Total 80 ROOTPERC Buffer 40 36.55 Control forest 40 44.45 Total 80 ROCKPERC Buffer 40 40.54 Control forest 39 39.45 Total 79 WOODDEBR Buffer 40 35.89 Control forest 40 45.11 Total 80 EROPERCE Buffer 40 44.29 Control forest 40 36.71 Total 80
Test Statisticsa,b
BAREGROUGDVEGECOLITTERCOROOTPERCROCKPERCWOODDEBREROPERCE Chi-Squar 1.120 .223 3.634 2.518 .052 3.287 2.823 df 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Asymp. Si .290 .637 .057 .113 .820 .070 .093 a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: LOCATION
114 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 2: Case Studies
D5(F): Table of spearman rank correlations for indicators measured along the Nandroya walking track.
Correlations
BAREGROUGDVEGECOLITTERCOROOTPERCWOODDEBREROPERCECOMPACTILITDEPTHCANOPYCOSEEDENSI Spearman's rh BAREGROUCorrelation Coeffic 1.000 -.151 -.250** .301** .193* .527** -.215* .163 -.134 .256** Sig. (2-tailed) . .353 .006 .001 .035 .000 .020 .077 .146 .005 N 119 40 119 119 119 119 117 119 119 119 GDVEGECOCorrelation Coeffic -.151 1.000 -.239 .071 .093 -.176 .027 -.295 .114 .189 Sig. (2-tailed) .353 . .137 .661 .569 .278 .874 .064 .484 .242 N 40 40 40 40 40 40 38 40 40 40 LITTERCO Correlation Coeffic -.250** -.239 1.000 -.105 -.012 -.152 .057 .188* .119 -.027 Sig. (2-tailed) .006 .137 . .254 .893 .098 .542 .040 .195 .770 N 119 40 120 120 120 120 118 120 120 120 ROOTPERCCorrelation Coeffic .301** .071 -.105 1.000 .244** .261** -.465** .363** .078 .447** Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .661 .254 . .007 .004 .000 .000 .399 .000 N 119 40 120 120 120 120 118 120 120 120 WOODDEB Correlation Coeffic .193* .093 -.012 .244** 1.000 .089 -.379** .433** .164 .295** Sig. (2-tailed) .035 .569 .893 .007 . .334 .000 .000 .074 .001 N 119 40 120 120 120 120 118 120 120 120 EROPERCECorrelation Coeffic .527** -.176 -.152 .261** .089 1.000 -.203* .156 -.118 .259** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .278 .098 .004 .334 . .027 .090 .200 .004 N 119 40 120 120 120 120 118 120 120 120 COMPACTI Correlation Coeffic -.215* .027 .057 -.465** -.379** -.203* 1.000 -.642** -.021 -.304** Sig. (2-tailed) .020 .874 .542 .000 .000 .027 . .000 .825 .001 N 117 38 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 LITDEPTH Correlation Coeffic .163 -.295 .188* .363** .433** .156 -.642** 1.000 .034 .292** Sig. (2-tailed) .077 .064 .040 .000 .000 .090 .000 . .710 .001 N 119 40 120 120 120 120 118 120 120 120 CANOPYCOCorrelation Coeffic -.134 .114 .119 .078 .164 -.118 -.021 .034 1.000 .091 Sig. (2-tailed) .146 .484 .195 .399 .074 .200 .825 .710 . .321 N 119 40 120 120 120 120 118 120 120 120 SEEDENSI Correlation Coeffic .256** .189 -.027 .447** .295** .259** -.304** .292** .091 1.000 Sig. (2-tailed) .005 .242 .770 .000 .001 .004 .001 .001 .321 . N 119 40 120 120 120 120 118 120 120 120 **. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
115 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
D5(G): Height of vegetation Tread/Buffer and control.
Test Statisticsa,b
Height HTGRASS broadleaf HTWOODY Chi-Square 4.164 14.734 25.447 df 2 2 2 Asymp. Sig. .125 .001 .000 a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: LOCATION
Ranks
LOCATION N Mean Rank HTGRASS Tread 20 31.42 Buffer 20 33.08 Control forest 20 27.00 Total 60 Height broadleaf Tread 20 19.40 Buffer 20 37.75 Control forest 20 34.35 Total 60 HTWOODY Tread 20 15.32 Buffer 20 39.35 Control forest 20 36.83 Total 60
D5(H): Height of vegetation Buffer/control.
Ranks
LOCATION N Mean Rank HTGRASS Buffer 20 22.50 Control forest 20 18.50 Total 40 Height broadleaf Buffer 20 21.77 Control forest 20 19.23 Total 40 HTWOODY Buffer 20 21.50 Control forest 20 19.50 Total 40
116 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 2: Case Studies
Test Statisticsa,b
Height HTGRASS broadleaf HTWOODY Chi-Square 4.318 .502 .296 df 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. .038 .478 .586 a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: LOCATION
D6 MURRAY FALLS CAMP AND PICNIC AREAS
D6(A): Comparison among tread, buffer and control.
Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b
BARESOIL VEGECOVE Chi-Square 99.042 Chi-Square 106.139 df 2 df 2 Asymp. Sig. .000 Asymp. Sig. .000 a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: ZONE b. Grouping Variable: ZONE
Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b
LITTERCO LITTERMM Chi-Square 501.427 Chi-Square 518.725 df 2 df 2 Asymp. Sig. .000 Asymp. Sig. .000 a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: ZONE b. Grouping Variable: ZONE
a,b Test Statisticsa,b Test Statistics
CANOPYCO SEEDLING Chi-Square 375.636 Chi-Square 541.993 df 2 df 2 Asymp. Sig. .000 Asymp. Sig. .000 a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: ZONE b. Grouping Variable: ZONE
Test Statisticsa,b
COMPACTI Chi-Square 504.846 df 2 Asymp. Sig. .000 a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: ZONE
117 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
D6(B): Comparison of buffer and control.
Test Statisticsa Test Statisticsa
BARESOIL VEGECOVE Mann-Whitney U 11636.000 Mann-Whitney U 7007.000 Wilcoxon W 22811.000 Wilcoxon W 23478.000 Z -2.161 Z -7.716 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .031 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 a. Grouping Variable: ZONE a. Grouping Variable: ZONE
Test Statisticsa Test Statisticsa
LITTERCO LITTERMM Mann-Whitney U 11505.000 Mann-Whitney U 5800.000 Wilcoxon W 26905.000 Wilcoxon W 17125.000 Z -1.744 Z -8.938 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .081 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 a. Grouping Variable: ZONE a. Grouping Variable: ZONE
Test Statisticsa Test Statisticsa
SEEDLING COMPACTI Mann-Whitney U 4122.500 Mann-Whitney U 7816.500 Wilcoxon W 15750.500 Wilcoxon W 23926.500 Z -11.047 Z -6.632 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 a. Grouping Variable: ZONE a. Grouping Variable: ZONE
Test Statisticsa
CANOPYCO Mann-Whitney U 8859.500 Wilcoxon W 20640.500 Z -5.514 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 a. Grouping Variable: ZONE
118 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 2: Case Studies
D6(C): Comparison between season using buffer and control only.
Test Statisticsa Test Statisticsa
BARESOIL VEGECOVE Mann-Whitney U 3118.000 Mann-Whitney U 4617.000 Wilcoxon W 5134.000 Wilcoxon W 6570.000 Z -7.690 Z -5.521 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 a. Grouping Variable: SEASON a. Grouping Variable: SEASON
Test Statisticsa Test Statisticsa
LITTERCO LITTERMM Mann-Whitney U 5215.000 Mann-Whitney U 6597.000 Wilcoxon W 40460.000 Wilcoxon W 42912.000 Z -4.675 Z -2.407 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .016 a. Grouping Variable: SEASON a. Grouping Variable: SEASON
Test Statisticsa Test Statisticsa
SEEDLING COMPACTI Mann-Whitney U 7121.000 Mann-Whitney U 4369.500 Wilcoxon W 9137.000 Wilcoxon W 6385.500 Z -1.906 Z -5.828 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .057 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 a. Grouping Variable: SEASON a. Grouping Variable: SEASON
Test Statisticsa
CANOPYCO Mann-Whitney U 4917.000 Wilcoxon W 6933.000 Z -5.131 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 a. Grouping Variable: SEASON
119 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
D6(D): Comparison between season using tread, buffer and control data.
Test Statisticsa Test Statisticsa
BARESOIL VEGECOVE Mann-Whitney U 39532.000 Mann-Whitney U 23891.000 Wilcoxon W 148343.00 Wilcoxon W 43394.000 Z -2.834 Z -9.791 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .005 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 a. Grouping Variable: SEASON a. Grouping Variable: SEASON
Test Statisticsa Test Statisticsa
LITTERCO LITTERMM Mann-Whitney U 43801.000 Mann-Whitney U 43290.000 Wilcoxon W 151681.00 Wilcoxon W 63190.000 Z -1.149 Z -1.277 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .250 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .202 a. Grouping Variable: SEASON a. Grouping Variable: SEASON
Test Statisticsa Test Statisticsa
SEEDLING COMPACTI Mann-Whitney U 33794.000 Mann-Whitney U 38178.500 Wilcoxon W 53694.000 Wilcoxon W 146989.500 Z -6.126 Z -3.526 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 a. Grouping Variable: SEASON a. Grouping Variable: SEASON
Test Statisticsa
CANOPYCO Mann-Whitney U 22890.000 Wilcoxon W 42196.000 Z -10.093 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 a. Grouping Variable: SEASON
120 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 2: Case Studies
D7 MURRAY FALLS GRADED WALKING TRACK
D7(A): ANOVA to test if the percentage canopy cover varied significantly between the buffer and control between season.
Dependent Variable: Percentage canopy cover (sqrt arc sin transformed).
Type III Sum of Source df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Corrected Model 9.235E-02 5 1.847E-02 0.229 0.949 Intercept 134.672 1 134.672 1670.731 0.000 LOCATION 1.417E-02 2 7.085E-03 0.088 0.916 SEASON 6.093E-02 1 6.093E-02 0.756 0.386 LOCATION * SEASON 1.725E-02 2 8.625E-03 0.107 0.899 Error 9.189 114 8.061E-02 Total 143.954 120 Corrected Total 9.282 119 a R Squared = .010 (Adjusted R Squared = -.033)
D7(B): ANOVA to test if the percentage bare ground (mineral soil exposure) varied significantly between the buffer and control between season.
Dependent Variable: Percentage Bare Ground (sqrt arcsin transformed).
Type III Sum of Source df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Corrected Model 0.291 3 9.714E-02 1.467 0.230 Intercept 4.474 1 4.474 67.545 0.000 SEASON 1.444E-02 1 1.444E-02 0.218 0.642 LOCATION 0.263 1 0.263 3.967 0.050 SEASON * LOCATION 1.423E-02 1 1.423E-02 0.215 0.644 Error 5.034 76 6.624E-02 Total 9.800 80 Corrected Total 5.326 79 a R Squared = .055 (Adjusted R Squared = .017)
121 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
D7(C): ANOVA to test if the percentage litter cover varied significantly between the buffer and control between season.
Dependent Variable: Percentage cover of litter (sqrt arcsin transformed).
Type III Sum of Source df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Corrected Model 0.493 3 0.164 0.887 0.452 Intercept 75.483 1 75.483 407.198 0.000 SEASON 0.312 1 0.312 1.686 0.198 LOCATION 0.179 1 0.179 0.967 0.329 SEASON * LOCATION 1.396E-03 1 1.396E-03 0.008 0.931 Error 14.088 76 0.185 Total 90.064 80 Corrected Total 14.581 79 a R Squared = .034 (Adjusted R Squared = -.004)
D7(D): ANOVA to test if the depth of litter varied significantly between the buffer and control between season.
Dependent Variable: Litter depth (sqrt arcsin transformed).
Type III Sum of Source df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Corrected Model 1.705E-02 3 5.684E-03 0.126 0.944 Intercept 33.211 1 33.211 735.911 0.000 SEASON 3.353E-03 1 3.353E-03 0.074 0.786 LOCATION 9.729E-03 1 9.729E-03 0.216 0.644 SEASON * LOCATION 3.425E-03 1 3.425E-03 0.076 0.784 Error 3.204 71 4.513E-02 Total 36.789 75 Corrected Total 3.221 74 a R Squared = .005 (Adjusted R Squared = -.037)
122 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 2: Case Studies
D7(E): ANOVA to test for a difference in compaction between the buffer and control between season.
Dependent Variable: Soil compaction (sqrt transfromed).
Type III Sum of Source df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Corrected Model 0.971 3 0.324 1.060 0.371 Intercept 42.299 1 42.299 138.507 0.000 SEASON 0.513 1 0.513 1.679 0.199 LOCATION 0.415 1 0.415 1.360 0.247 SEASON * LOCATION 4.268E-02 1 4.268E-02 0.140 0.710 Error 23.210 76 0.305 Total 66.480 80 Corrected Total 24.181 79 a R Squared = .040 (Adjusted R Squared = .002)
D7(F): Comparison of ground vegetation cover between buffer and control; and wet and dry season using buffer and control data.
Test Statisticsa Test Statisticsa
GDVEGECO GDVEGECO Mann-Whitney U 584.000 Mann-Whitney U 96.500 Wilcoxon W 1214.000 Wilcoxon W 916.500 Z -.365 Z -6.523 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .715 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 a. Grouping Variable: LOCATION a. Grouping Variable: SEASON
D7(G): Comparison of percentage root cover between buffer and control, and wet and dry season on using buffer and control data.
Test Statisticsa Test Statisticsa
ROOTPERC ROOTPERC Mann-Whitney U 740.500 Mann-Whitney U 559.000 Wilcoxon W 1560.500 Wilcoxon W 1379.000 Z -.717 Z -2.904 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .473 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .004 a. Grouping Variable: LOCATION a. Grouping Variable: SEASON
123 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
D7(H): Comparison of number of seedlings between buffer and control, and wet and dry season using buffer and control data.
Test Statisticsa Test Statisticsa
SEEDENSI SEEDENSI Mann-Whitney U 729.500 Mann-Whitney U 588.500 Wilcoxon W 1549.500 Wilcoxon W 1408.500 Z -.684 Z -2.053 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .494 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .040 a. Grouping Variable: LOCATION a. Grouping Variable: SEASON
D7(I): Comparison of percentage cover of woody debris between buffer and control, and wet and dry season using buffer and control data.
Test Statisticsa Test Statisticsa
WOODDEBR WOODDEBR Mann-Whitney U 714.500 Mann-Whitney U 652.000 Wilcoxon W 1534.500 Wilcoxon W 1472.000 Z -.897 Z -1.553 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .370 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .121 a. Grouping Variable: LOCATION a. Grouping Variable: SEASON
D7(J): Comparison of percentage erosion between buffer and control, and wet and dry season using buffer and control data.
Test Statisticsa Test Statisticsa
EROPERCE EROPERCE Mann-Whitney U 737.000 Mann-Whitney U 620.000 Wilcoxon W 1557.000 Wilcoxon W 1440.000 Z -1.105 Z -3.158 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .269 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .002 a. Grouping Variable: LOCATION a. Grouping Variable: SEASON
D7(K): Comparison of percentage root cover amongst zones (tread, buffer and control) and between season.
Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa
ROOTPERC ROOTPERC Chi-Square .649 Mann-Whitney U 1158.500 df 2 Wilcoxon W 2988.500 Asymp. Sig. .723 Z -4.156 a. Kruskal Wallis Test Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 b. Grouping Variable: LOCATION a. Grouping Variable: SEASON
124 Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 2: Case Studies
D7(L): Comparison of percentage woody debris cover amongst zones (tread, buffer and control) and between season.
Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa
WOODDEBR WOODDEBR Chi-Square 16.866 Mann-Whitney U 1441.000 df 2 Wilcoxon W 3271.000 Asymp. Sig. .000 Z -2.215 a. Kruskal Wallis Test Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .027 b. Grouping Variable: LOCATION a. Grouping Variable: SEASON
125
Visitor Monitoring System – Volume 2: Case Studies
APPENDIX E – SECTION OF SURVEY INSTRUMENT TO INVESTIGATE VISITORS’ PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
See Bentrupperbaumer and Reser 2002.
1. Please indicate how important you consider each of the following SCALE benefits of this natural area are: Not important Î Important (a) Conservation of plants and animals 1 2 3 4 5 6 (b) Education about Aboriginal cultural heritage 1 2 3 4 5 6 (c) Education about non-Indigenous cultural heritage 1 2 3 4 5 6 (d) Education about the environment 1 2 3 4 5 6 (e) Scenic beauty 1 2 3 4 5 6 (f) Places for recreation and relaxation 1 2 3 4 5 6 (g) Economic benefits from tourism 1 2 3 4 5 6 (h) Clean water 1 2 3 4 5 6 (i) Clean air 1 2 3 4 5 6
2. What do you consider to be the three most important treats to the well-being of the environment at this site? (a) ...... (b) ...... (c) ......
3. What strategies are you aware of that could reduce the impact of your visit to this area? ......
4. Please rate your perception of the quality/status of the following SCALE aspects (where applicable) at the site: Low Î High (a) Soil condition (evidence of erosion, top-soil loss, removal of 1 2 3 4 5 6 leaf litter) (b) Water quality (evidence of pollution) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (c) Presence of weeds 1 2 3 4 5 6 (d) Condition of vegetation (e.g. trampling, breakage, ring- 1 2 3 4 5 6 barking, fire scars) (e) Native wildlife behaviour (e.g. evidence of scavenging, 1 2 3 4 5 6 tameness) (f) Deliberate human impacts on infrastructure (evidence of 1 2 3 4 5 6 graffiti, vandalism) (g) Presence of feral and/or domestic animals (evidence of cane 1 2 3 4 5 6 toads, pigs, dogs)
127 Wilson, Turton, Bentrupperbäumer and Reser
Additional Comments: ......
SCALE 5. How would you rate your level of physical comfort during your Uncomfortable Î Comfortable visit to this site today? 1 2 3 4 5 6 If you were uncomfortable, please provide details: ......
6. Which of the following items did you bring on your trip today? Hat Long sleeve shirt Long pants Sunglasses Rain coat/gear Backpack Insect repellent Water 7. How often do you visit a National Park or natural area like this one? This is my/our first time Less than once a year Once a year Two to five times a year More than five times a year
128